Can I Buy You a Drink and Light Your Cigarette? (Cathryn Crawford)

The Washington Dispatch ^ | January 2, 2004 | Cathryn Crawford

[Scenic Sounds]

It seems that everyone has an opinion on the smoking bans that have been put into place in the last year. From Dallas to New York City to California, smokers are no longer allowed to smoke inside bars and restaurants. These bans have been met with great resistance, not only from smokers, but from the owners of the bars and restaurants, who say that the restriction is harming their business and causing profit loss. The opponents of such a ban also say that the bans are unconstitutional, because they prohibit legal behavior in privately owned places of business.

Most people rightly characterize this issue as having two sides - those on the side of property rights and liberty, and those who are on the side of public health. (I am without the scientific qualifications to resolve that issue, but I am comfortable assuming that cigarette smoke doesn't become safer just because one person has inhaled it before it gets to me.) Granting that assumption, which deserves priority – the right of a proprietor to control what legal activities happen in his bar, or the right of a member of the public to live and work in the safest environment possible?

Those who endorse the public health side of this issue contend that health issues outweigh every argument. They believe that people have the right to always be in the safest environment possible (whether they want to be or not), and that legislation is the proper vehicle by which to ensure public health. Their basic belief is that nothing is more important than health and safety for everyone, not even the idea of personal choice. They are willing to have their personal liberties curbed because they believe that it will improve the quality of their lives.

However, I believe that it really comes down to personal choice and responsibility. When someone makes a decision (any decision), they must decide for themselves what risks are involved, and weigh them rationally against the benefits. This applies to the decision to eat, drink, or work in a certain bar or restaurant, just as it does when someone makes the decision to drive a car, eat junky foods, or drink alcohol – all activities which are potentially dangerous but very legal. A ban on smoking takes away the choices of all three parties involved – smokers, nonsmokers, and owners. It also assumes that people are not sufficiently reasonable or rational enough to make their own decisions regarding their health.

Are there are ways to allow both sides to have a say in public smoking? Of course there are. Why not just require restaurants and bars that permit smoking to post a notice advising prospective customers of the hazard?

Until smoking is banned altogether, the decisions regarding the right to smoke in privately owned businesses should be left up to the individual discretion of the owner. Otherwise, choice is removed and replaced with full control by the government, which invalidates the entire idea of private ownership.

Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached at CathrynCrawford@WashingtonDispatch.com.

[freeeee]

When most people think of communism they think of money. The most famous characteristic of classic communist countries is a nationalized economy: communist governments don't recognize an individuals right to assert private property rights over a business. This is chiefly done to deny a private business owner's property right to his profits, hence the tendency to think of communism as a purely economic phenomenon. But when closely analyzed, the key component of communism isn't merely state control of money, it's the state's failure to respect private property rights of all sorts.

Money isn't the only property right a business owner has. He has the right to determine what occurs on his or her property. His right extends to the cash in his register, the music he plays, the food he serves, the products he offers, and yes, what behavior is tolerated on his property, including smoking.

The communist holds that the will of the people outweighs the rights of the individual, hence they will themselves become owners of businesses, and collectively assign themselves its property rights. It is said communist governments assert this "ownership" on behalf of the people. But at least they're honest and upfront about it: they tell you right to your face that you can't own a business.

However a more insidious form of communism exists: government, always seeking power and therefore money may seek to take advantage of the prosperity of the free market. It operates under a false façade of ownership, alleging private property rights exist and doling them out in barely sufficient amounts as privileges in order to lure productive individuals to create wealth. This is properly called fascism.

So when any people vote to steal a man's property right to allow smoking on his premises, they are by definition behaving as communists. When they allege he still owns his business, they are fascists. Few will own up to this because it would expose them for what they are. They'll call themselves free or capitalists, but then again I can call myself a fire hydrant. They are defined by their actions, and now you know who and what they really are.

[Scenic Sounds]

If it is a government run hospital, it is the government's job. In private facilities it should be left up to the facilities. Just like any other business.

I think your position is a reasonable one.

Do you think that some private hospitals would permit smoking if they could? I ask that because there seems now to be a perception (whether that perception is right or wrong) among a large percentage of the population that second-hand smoke is very unhealthy. Changing that perception represents a very steep climb up a big hill, doesn't it?

[SheLion]

not to mention burning cigaretts and oxygen use don't mix.

It's only common sense not to smoke around oxygen.  But the hospitals in Maine won't even allow anyone to smoke in their private vehicles in their PARKING lot. 

[Gabz]

Don't get me started on RWJ!!!!!

[freekitty]

I don't smoke anymore, and I don't see any reason for these stupid laws banning smoking; especially since they are not about banning smoking. That's the point. They are about controling the masses rather than any health issue. Most control issues are. One of the tactics is scaring the hell out of you on just about anything. Now they are doing it with food. What's next? The talk police?

P.S. I loved smoking and really hated to give it up; but it was my decision. And some day I just may have one more.

[SheLion]

Wow, you have done your homework!!

You wouldn't believe how much! Check out my one site

Forces Maine

[Scenic Sounds]

Wow!

I've bookmarked your site so I can check it out more thoroughly later. I love the smokers' balcony in North Maine. ;-)

[SheLion]

I've bookmarked your site so I can check it out more thoroughly later. I love the smokers' balcony in North Maine. ;-)

hehe! Well, that's what our smoking decks would look like up here.  Add sub zero wind chills and 60 mph winds, and how pleasant do you think THAT is to a smoker?  Not much!

But I have more links then you can shake a stick at.  I've been at this for a long time.  And I have a wonderful backing of knowledgeable people and we are working so very hard to get the truth out there.  It's been a big stuggle though, because we do not have the funding that the Anti-Smokers have. 

[cibco]

"I'm hoping to hear more on the question of whether second-hand smoke really is safe."

Here is one article on it...

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/912501/posts

[secretagent]

kcpq
Businesses Vow To Ignore Smoking Ban
The Associated Press

December 27, 2003, 10:56 PM PST

TACOMA -- As many as 40 bar and restaurant owners say they plan to disobey the Pierce County smoking ban set to go into effect next Friday, and are raising money to sue to overturn it.

The ban would prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, minicasinos, hotels and most other non-tribal businesses in Pierce County.

The business owners had been relying on the Washington Restaurant Association to lead the charge. But that group has backed away from the threat of legal action.

The ban, by the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health, which would be the first of its kind in the state. Harry Johnson, owner of Pegasus Restaurant in Tacoma, says business owners have already pledged 25-thousand dollars to overturn the ban. In the meantime, many plan to let their customers keep right on puffing Friday, even though that could bring fines on both the smokers and businesses. Violators also could lose licenses needed to stay open for business.

Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, these issue can be viewed simply as a battle between "communism" and "liberty," but I think that approach misses a lot of the important subtleties that are going on in these issues. The problem is that most of the "libertarians" grant that there should be some restrictions on one's use of property and most of the "communists" agree that there are some limits to government. All of the action in the real world takes place between these extremes.

The modern regulator views property rights as the relationship between a human being and the property he owns in a less than absolute way. He doesn't see an owner as having unlimited rights as a consequence of ownership. Instead, he sees ownership as involving a bundle of different rights and attempts to focus on the particular rights which might have to be modified in order to protect other values he deems to be more important.

For example, at one time the owner of real estate was thought to own the space above his land to the cosmos. Rightly or wrongly, the advent of aviation led us to modify the landowner's rights in that regard. Were those modifications a victory for "communism" or just a victory for progress and common sense? Everyone has their own opinion, I guess.

[Gabz]

Do you think that some private hospitals would permit smoking if they could?

Maybe not inside, or only in certain designated areas, but at least out doors.

When Delaware first banned smoking in all state facilities the state long term care facility buitl, at taxpayer expense, a seperate pavillion for their residents to smoke. Everyone was happy. When the total smoking ban went into effect last year - it prohibitted smoking even in the seperate smoking building. The hospital administration sought a waiver for the pavillion - it was denied.

It was denied by the same Department of health that had authorized the construction of it to begin with. And the same DOH that employees the hospital administrators.

Changing that perception represents a very steep climb up a big hill, doesn't it?

Yes it does, primarily because of money. As She Lion points out lots of grants and other funding are made to hospitals from the RWJFoundation to ban smoking. These grants also go to state created anti-smoking groups that then run million dollar advertising campaigns to get the word out.

As you pointed out in a previous post - She Lion has done her homework - as have a lot of other folks just like har - on their own time and dime. But most of the information never gets any publicity because folks like SL and myself are immediately branded as paid tobacco mouth peices (we're not) and once that is said, many people just tune out what is trying to be said.

I could go on and on and on, but I hope you see my point. I've been involved in this issue in one way or another for 15 years and so have seen first hand exactly what has happened. It's not a happy memory.

I think your position is a reasonable one.

Thank you.

[SheLion]

Thanks, cibco!

I will have to add that to my page about second hand smoke! I forgot about that one. Thanks again!

[cibco]

You're wellcome...

[Sergio]

Hi SheLion

Wow - thanks for all the links.

I saw this coming when they started passing helmet laws for adult motorcyclists. My co-workers thought I had watched too many episodes of X-Files when I told them, "what's next, smoking, junk food?"

In this instance...boy, I hate being right.

As others have said, it's not about health, it's about control.

Best Regards

Sergio

[William Terrell]

I am without the scientific qualifications to resolve that issue, but I am comfortable assuming that cigarette smoke doesn't become safer just because one person has inhaled it before it gets to me.

You don't have to have any scientific qualifications to evaluate an issue of commonsense. The fact is that most smokers smoke most of their lives and do not die of heart disease, lung cancer and emphysema. It's only necessary to note that these people pull smoke directly into their lungs without dilution by the surrounding atmosphere.

So-called secondhand smoke has been filtered through the lungs of the smoker and is diluted by large cubic volumes of the atmosphere, even in a crowded room. The only way a person who breathes secondhand smoke can contact an illness from it is if they already are fragile enough to contact an illness from simply living in a medium size city.

Our current world population is at levels that argue against any significant number of these delicate people. All this is quite beyond the fact that secondhand smoke studies have been proven to be junk science.

Many people don't like the smell of (unscented)tobacco smoke. Heretofore, they have not been able to say anything because they produce bad smells themselves, albeit out of the other end, although (in most cases) not as often.

These are the people who refuse to let go of their holy reliance on the mentioned junk science, and since their cause is to further impact individual civil liberties, politicians, who loathe civil liberties as a limit on their powers, help them out.

[Poser]

I love smokers. Every time they buy a pack of cigarettes, they pay a few dollars tax that I won't have to pay.

Thank you guys.

[SheLion]

because folks like SL and myself are immediately branded as paid tobacco mouth peices (we're not) and once that is said, many people just tune out what is trying to be said.

hehe! When my bags of tobacco come from overseas and not grown by our own Big Tobacco, I don't think I can hardly be labeled a Big Tobacco Mouthpiece. LOL!  Shoot.  I don't even support THEM anymore.  Oh well...........I'm sorry, but I just needed those tax dollars for other things.  Especially at Christmas.

[cibco]

Going for #100 Poser?

[Gabz]

Why do you think I plan on planting tobacco this year.