ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES

United Pro Choice ^ | 3-6-05 | David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

[Just another Joe]

What it comes down to, IMO, You believe in the tyranny of the majority. The law MUST be obeyed no matter what.

I do not.

Your points are valid from your point of view.

We have nothing more to discuss.

[Lucky Dog]

We have nothing more to discuss.

Sorry, I must clarify a misstatement you made before this discussion is terminated.

...You believe in the tyranny of the majority.

You could not be more mistaken. In no way, do I support infringement of the individual rights enshrined in our Constitution, and in particular, the US Bill of Rights or those similarly enshrined in individual state constitutions. However, there is also no way that I support someone claiming a behavior as a "right" just because he or she says it is. Additionally, there are bona fide situations in which individual rights come into conflict. In such situations, legislative or judicial action determines which right is superior.

The law MUST be obeyed no matter what.

You are, again, incorrect as when a law is unconstitutional, I do support civil disobedience. However, when the law is Constitutionally valid, then you are correct, it should be obeyed. Without the rule of law, society degenerates into the "rule of men" which inevitably becomes despotism and tyranny.

[Just another Joe]

So if the government say they must regulate something for no good reason, we must obey that regulation?
You kid yourself if you think you are not on the side of bad government.

[Lucky Dog]

So if the government say they must regulate something for no good reason, we must obey that regulation?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If the government "decides" it must regulate something, it is because our freely elected representatives pass a law. Such can occur only in accordance with above guidance from our Constitution after debate and deliberation. Any citizen is free to contribute such debate through petition of his or her representative.

You kid yourself if you think you are not on the side of bad government.

"Bad" government can exist only if its citizens allow such.

[Just another Joe]

"Bad" government can exist only if its citizens allow such.

You will allow, "bad government", because you hate to smell tobacco smoke.

And let me tell you, you are one such allowing it.

As I said, we have nothing left to discuss.

[Just another Joe]

"Bad" government can exist only if its citizens allow such.

You will allow, "bad government", because you hate to smell tobacco smoke.

And let me tell you, you are one such allowing it.

As I said, we have nothing left to discuss.

[Just another Joe]

Sorry about the double post.
It came up with a blank reply for me the first time.

[Lucky Dog]

As I said, we have nothing left to discuss.

Sorry you feel this way.

You will allow, "bad government", because you hate to smell tobacco smoke. And let me tell you, you are one such allowing it.

I disagree with both of your postulates.

First, it is not bad government to limit smoking, the open display of pornography, or any number of other things, in businesses open to the "public" or other public places.

Second, I am but one citizen and even if I were a legislator, I would have but one vote. Consequently, the must be an agreement by a majority of my fellow citizens and/or fellow legislators after deliberate debate and consideration that such restrictions were appropriate.

Additionally, such a restriction could easily be, and would be, struck down on judicial review if it were unconstitutional.

Therefore, while such a restriction might qualify as "bad" government in your opinion, it does not do so in my opinion, or obviously, a majority of other citizens, legislators or jurists.

[djreece]

Are you calling me a liar? Before Maine was forced to go smoke free, my favorite Tavern down town has 4 big smoke eaters on the ceilings. The smell of STALE beer and smoke was greatly reduced. I use air purifiers in my own home, they are that good.

It's just that it never ceases to amaze me how smokers think no one can tell there is smoking going on. It makes one's clothes and hair reek. It carries through closed doors and often through walls. Have you ever asked nonsmokers if they can smell the smoke in your home and at the tavern? Somehow I wouldn't be surprised that when they tell you of course they can, you put it down to them being "whiny."

Anytime I travel outside of California, I reaffirm how glad I am that we have prohibited smoking inside of public places.

[SheLion]

Have you ever asked nonsmokers if they can smell the smoke in your home and at the tavern? Somehow I wouldn't be surprised that when they tell you of course they can, you put it down to them being "whiny."

Anytime I travel outside of California, I reaffirm how glad I am that we have prohibited smoking inside of public places.

I wouldn't and have never had a "friend' so narrow-minded as you.  And I sure am happy that none of my friends are such sensitive  wimps.

"YOU" prohibited?  Are you one of those highly paid ant- smokers we all bitch about?!

Did you forget that this is the Free Republic Forum and not the Yahoo Smoking Boards?  I think you have a little CINO in you.  You are all for your own freedoms and to hell with the rest of us.

Here you are:

[djreece]

Your response is exactly what I expected. It's that type of "considerate" response that pushed a lot of nonsmokers into the position where they backed the bans.

In regards to someone having to be a part of the "anti-smoking lobby" to have been part of the ban, you are severely mistaken as far as California is concerned. In California WE THE PEOPLE used the initiative process to ban smoking in public. Personally, I voted against the second ban (for bars) because I thought it went too far.

In other states the bans may have been imposed by legislators influenced by "anti-smoking Nazis" and your arguments may carry some weight, but that was not the case in California.

[SheLion]

Ok Mr. Big Wig. You're not making any friends here, that's for sure.

CYA. Enjoy your life in Kookifornia.

[Just A Nobody]

"Gabz recently moved to VA. They are quit happy there so far."

Thanks for the insight. I was in VA in Nov. for about 3 weeks. I did like it there, which is why I listed it as a 2nd choice.

[Garnet Dawn]

"The key difference seems to be where you (and your fellow smokers) think the "BOUNDS" of government should be versus where the majority of the population thinks they should be. Given that none of your objections have involved any of the individual guarantees in the Bill or Rights, it would appear that your position is only an opinion versus the opinion of many more of your fellow citizens. In a democratic republic such as ours, you remain entitled to hold your opinion but not demand that others adhere to it."

---

I was not going to respond again, but you have touched on a few subjects that require one more response.

Californians, like voters in Florida and New York were poorly informed as to the details, ramifications and inconveniences that result from statewide smoking bans. Admittedly, the antis have been very clever in the wording they use when they take opinion polls or propose smoking bans, and have used social engineering to convince a majority of the "sheeple" living in this country that smoking is harmful to the bystander. Second hand smoke, passive smoke or ETS, whatever you choose to call it HAS NOT been proven by unbiased authorities to be harmful. Until it really is, the court is still out on the final answer.

I'm glad you understand we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, we are not a country ruled by the mob majority. "I pledge allegiance to the flag and the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS....."

It is often said that majority rule is just like mob rule. You can pretty much see this in the mentality and propaganda of smoking bans. He who screams the loudest and whips up the biggest crowd will win and it has nothing to do with who is right. We used to burn witches you know.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have NATURAL RIGHTS instead of civil rights. THE PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS FROM THE MAJORITY. One vote in a jury can stop ALL of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

Since you say we have omitted reference to the Bill of Rights (or our first ten Amendments), I will give my example of how smoking bans are violating this country's basic principles.

Amendment V
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Smoking bans are depriving small business owners of their liberty and property without due process of law. Their property is being take for public use without just compensation. Also, the liberty and pursuit of happiness by smokers is being intruded upon by the "mob" majority, and we count for far more than ONE.

These are liberties that it is unconstitutional for our government to intrude upon.

[Lucky Dog]

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property [emphasis mine] be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Smoking bans are depriving small business owners of their liberty and property without due process of law. Their property is being take for public use without just compensation. Also, the liberty and pursuit of happiness by smokers is being intruded upon by the "mob" majority, and we count for far more than ONE.

These are liberties that it is unconstitutional for our government to intrude upon.

You are incorrect. No smoking ban is depriving any small business owners anywhere of “their liberty and property without due process of law. “

The answer to your objection has already been discussed on this thread. However, for convenience, I have extracted and repeated portions of several previous posts below that address the point you raised:

The following exchange compares other restrictions on business owners concerning legal activities or substances to the restriction on tobacco:

From Post 202 posted on 03/07/2005 2:23:22 PM PST

And what do ANY of these things have to do with the right of a property owner to allow, or disallow, the use of a LEGAL commodity on their property?

Let's take these examples and see by comparison what points are similar to smoking bans in restaurants.

First, pornography is legal in most places for adults to purchase. However, there are legal restrictions on where and how it can be displayed by the business owner selling it. (A "legal substance," or item, if you will, that is restricted by law)

Second, prostitution is legal in Nevada (not so in most other places in the US). However, even in Nevada, it is legally restricted by more than just "health" regulations. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where and how it can be consumed)

Thirdly, public drunkenness is prohibited nearly everywhere in this country. However, "private" drunkenness is perfectly legal. Additionally, nearly all states have a prohibition against having an open container of alcohol in a moving motor vehicle. (Another "legal substance," if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed)

Fourthly, gambling is legal in some states in certain locations but not others. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed)

In short, there are all kinds of restrictions on property owners that operate "public business" and "legal substances" or "activities" as to where and how they may occur. There is no legal reason for tobacco to be any different.

From Post 203 posted on 03/07/2005 2:29:18 PM PST

I would think that private property rights, whether the property is open, at the invitation of the owner, to the public, or not, is protected by the founding government documents

You are incorrect in your thoughts on this issue. The existence of a host of business regulations in every US jurisdiction proves the point. The minute "private" property is used in a "public" business, the property owner surrenders a large number of rights that would otherwise be his or hers.

Sorry, it is a fact of life all over the world and especially here in the US.

From Post 206 posted on 03/07/2005 2:55:43 PM PST

I don't care a whether tobacco is outlawed or not. I only care if I am forced to endure any ill effects, including its noxious order, against my will. If smokers wish to partake of this activity where it has no possible way of impacting any one but themselves, I really have no objections.

Private property owners are unreasonably being denied the RIGHT to allow...

Get over it. Private property owner surrender a huge number of rights when the use their property for "public" business. It is a fact of life. I haven't heard you complaining about any of the other rights these "private" property owners surrender for the purposes of business.

[Garnet Dawn]

"..Without just compensation." were the words I highlighted, and I don't care WHAT you wrote in your previous posts. I read them once and was disgusted then. I answered you once, that was enough! You just like to argue.....Bye.

[Cantiloper]

Lucky, you've been hanging around Antismokers for too long: you've absorbed their sound bite mentality and fallacisous argumentation techniques.


Lucky wrote:Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a corner of the pool to pee in.

I respond: Lucky, a restaurant changes its air on the order of 15,000 times a year. A pool changes its water once a year. Can you see a difference there? Of perhaps one million five hundred thousand percent? Here's what I said about it in Dissecting, p. 112:

=======
Let me include a final and somewhat amusing note on secondary smoke to bring our spirits back up. Antismokers have historically been partial to using scatological imagery to add impact to their descriptions of tobacco smoke in the air. Sometimes these are deliberately humorous, (as in “Do you mind if I smoke? No, do YOU mind if I fart?”), and sometimes unintentionally so, (as one Antismoker found when she reduced a TV hostess to laughter by comparing smoking to wandering around a restaurant placing warm buckets of manure on everyone’s tables – [“It’s Your Call with Lynn Doyle” 07/14/01 – Gabrielle LeVecque and Regina Carlson]), but one of the most common of such arguments concerns public swimming pools.

In this argument the Antismoker will state as fact that having a nonsmoking area in a restaurant is like having a non-pissing section in a swimming pool. This image has power unless you think about it for a minute or two, but the “naughtiness” of the image usually precludes the idea of such closer examination.

In reality of course the restaurant changes its air six times or more every hour. The pool water is lucky if it’s changed twice in a year! The analogy is imperfect by a factor of about 15,000 air/water changes!! In addition, any decently designed non-smoking section will have an air current that will be toward, rather than from, the smoking section. Pissing somewhere down stream in a river (as almost every riverside American city does) would be a more appropriate analogy than pissing in a pool.

Let me make a final observation: if any adult out there seriously thinks they can dive into a public pool with a hundred screaming kids and NO piss… they probably also believe in the tooth fairy!

---

Lucky wrote: No one “has to smoke,” but everyone has to breathe.

I respond: Lucky, this is an example of a "False Dilemma." Here's how I examined it in Dissecting, page 205-206

=======

Fallacies of Equivocation and False Dilemma

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when one uses the same word in two different ways during the course of an argument in order to produce the desired, and false, conclusion. We saw an exam-ple of this in the chapter on Language when we spoke of the “toxic” elements in tobacco smoke. There is the scientific term toxic, which refers to a certain amount of a given element producing harm, and there is the popular definition of toxic, which means “it will kill you,” without reference to the amount necessary, and then there is the even looser popular interpretation that toxic simply means “something bad.”

Thus, scientifically speaking, salt is toxic to the human body when ingested in unusually large quantities. Popularly, of course, salt is never considered to be a toxin. Conversely, a real scientist would not normally use the term “toxic” to describe the quantity of arsenic in the air when someone has smoked a cigarette. Remember, the quantity a nonsmoker would normally be exposed to is measured in nanograms or even just picograms!

To the popular mind however, arsenic is a deadly poison, and people are not accustomed to thinking of it in any other way, regardless of the dose involved; which, of course, is why arsenic, formaldehyde and similar chemicals are often the ones cited by Crusading groups at hearings on smoking bans. The table at the end of Appendix B shows just how weak those arguments really are when examined with science rather than rhetoric.

Crusaders also use equivocation in several different ways when they speak of “Saving the Children.” First, as pointed out earlier, is the simple play on the word “children” itself, which summons up images of 6-year-olds rather than 18-year-olds. The second equivocation occurs when they speak of deaths in the same breath as they speak of children. The deaths that they speak of are not the deaths of children as children, but deaths that largely occur when those children are retired and raising grandchildren themselves! While assuredly no death is ever good, the emotional appeal of confusing the possibility of deaths decades into the future with the present image of childhood’s purity and innocence is equivocation....

One particularly popular equivocation at hearings on smoking bans is the false opposition of “The Right To Breathe” with “The Right To Smoke”. Politicians are given a false dilemma choice between “air that is safe to breathe” and air that is “contaminated by toxic tobacco smoke.” People were breathing quite successfully for decades without the existence of wide-spread smoking bans, and of course air that has a sufficiently diluted quantity of tobacco smoke in it is still generally going to be quite safe to breathe from any rational scientific, individual or even public health standpoint.

Even the air at the top of Mt. Everest will always contain a few atoms that rose from someone’s pipe, cigar, or barbeque. “Safe” air does not necessarily mean “smoke-free” air. The matter of concern for safety is always one of degree… a distinction universally ignored by Crusaders when they push for total bans: in true Newspeak fashion the goal is to redefine the terms so that it becomes impossible to even think of air as being safe if it might have a trace of smoke in it.

---

[Lucky Dog]

Lucky, you've been hanging around Antismokers for too long: you've absorbed their sound bite mentality and fallacisous argumentation techniques.

I hope you don’t mind if I disagree with your assessment.

Lucky wrote: Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a corner of the pool to pee in.

I respond: Lucky, a restaurant changes its air on the order of 15,000 times a year. A pool changes its water once a year. Can you see a difference there? …

The analogy you are quarreling with on a logical basis was offered both for humor and rhetorical effect. The intent of the analogy was to show that someone adding what is, certainly, a disagreeable and, potentially, a dangerous substance to some, to an environment shared by all, is, prima fascia, a conflict of rights and exceptionally poor manners.

Lucky wrote: No one “has to smoke,” but everyone has to breathe.

I respond: Lucky, this is an example of a "False Dilemma." Here's how I examined it in Dissecting, page 205-206…

Again, I hope you don’t mind if I disagree with your assessment.

Your entire postulation assumed that the comparison was based only “toxic” elements in smoke. In deed, there is such “toxicity” and your explanation ignores the element of exposure over time, i.e., accumulated dosage. However, the comparison, while inclusive of “toxic” elements, goes well beyond any “toxic” substances issue.

Since you’re into logic, let’s try a few syllogisms:

There is an absolute physiological requirement for all people to breathe.
There is no absolute physiological requirement for anyone to smoke.
Therefore, everyone has to breathe but no one has to smoke.

Breathing is an autonomic nervous system function which can be interrupted for only a few minutes without extreme detriment to the individual.
Smoking is a purely voluntary function which can be interrupted indefinitely with no detriment to any individual.
Therefore, interrupting smoking is preferable to interrupting breathing.

The presence of smoke is offensive and potentially hazardous to all non-smokers.
The absence of smoke is only inconvenient and potentially health enhancing to all smokers.
Therefore, the absence of smoke is more beneficial to both smokers and non-smokers.

Everyone has a right to the enjoyment of an environment necessary for life and health, free of unreasonably offensive and unhealthful infringement by others.
Smoke is an offensive and potentially unhealthful infringement of all non-smokers’ environment.
Therefore, non-smokers have right to be free of smoke in their environment.

I could go on and on, but unless you particularly want more, I think these make the point sufficiently.