Ban the Ban
Joey and Ryan have launched a wonderful effort to fight the smoking ban in Wisconsin. They are cataloging the real effects and arguing for liberty with gusto. Go check them out at Ban the Ban.
Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State did not impress me at all. It reminded me of many of Scott’s arguments here for either; global warming, Clinton defense, socialized healthcare. Full of words, lacking in facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2008 at 0045 hrs
What drinker is so arrogant to think they are entitled to go into some guys bar and demand to not have to smell smoke.
I hate smoke… I absolutely can’t stand it.
But believe me, if I paid a couple hundred grand for a bar, opened it, remodeled it, staffed it, stocked it… You’d better believe its MY right as a bar owner to let people smoke in MY bar or not smoke in MY bar.
I love the summer because all of the outdoor drinking events allow me to enjoy fresh air AND a cocktail. During the winter, I don’t go out as much because I can’t stand the smoke. I’m always a little miffed that there isn’t a HUGE demand for smoke free bars, but the ones in MKE that have been opened haven’t been profitable. So that’s the reality. I’ll stick to restaurants and having friends over at my house for cocktails during the winter. That is my right. Not to go to SOMEONE ELSES PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT and demand to have a smoke free environment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2008 at 0134 hrs
I don’t know if it’s possible to totally ban smoking. As far as I know, the tobacco trade and cigarette producers pay big amounts in taxes.
Posted by Natashiya on February 09, 2008 at 0217 hrs
I am a little confused why this is an issue. This seems to be no different than the many other ways that we tell employers they must conduct their businesses. Is smoking legal? Yes, but this is irrelevant. Society allows a business to conduct public transactions and society establishes the minimum methods the business must use to conduct that business. One such method is the manner in which the employer must treat its employees. We do not allow the employer to force the employee to work in known hazardous conditions (the general duty clause of OSHA). If an employer is going to have employees, he must provide the appropriate environment. In my field, electrical, clothing made from artificial fiber is legal, but I can not allow my electricians to wear it in certain situations. I am banned from establishing my own clothing policy. I could say that, it is my business and I will run it how I want and set whatever clothing policy I want. I could say that if the electrician doesn’t like it, he can find another job. I could say that he does not have a right to work for me. I could say all those things, but they would probably be said in front of a judge.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2008 at 0703 hrs
If an employer is going to have employees, he must provide the appropriate environment.
And which employees, exactly, are forced to work in a bar or restaurant with smoking? No one drags them in off the street, slaps an apron on them and tells them they have to work in the smoking section.
Employment is voluntary, and very few employees really have “no option” in finding different employment.
Posted by Amy P. on February 09, 2008 at 0855 hrs
In my field, electrical, clothing made from artificial fiber is legal, but I can not allow my electricians to wear it in certain situations.
I don’t know the electrician trade inside and out, but I do believe th e situation you are using as a comparison is more applicable as a safety issue, not a health issue.
I believe a parallel comparision to yours would be that its illegal to smoke near the gas-pumps at a gas station.
Noone argues against that ban. Noone is claiming that gas station owners have “a right” to decide who can smoke near their pumps and who can’t. Its a safety issue.
Second hand smoke is definitely a health issue. But are we ready to legislate health? Because if we are, then let me be the first to dump my stock in Krispy Kreme and pick up some stock in Ballys.
No doubt second hand smoke is a health issue. But its not a safety issue. And people who smoke, and people who choose to be around people who smoke (wether by social behavior or employment choices) are doing just that. Making a choice. Good on them.
I can’t stand smoke, so I choose not to be around it.
In our office tower downtown, there is no-smoking… And it didn’t take a government ban to make that happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2008 at 0917 hrs
If secondhand smoke were truly a safety issue, OSHA would have passed regulations on it by now. In fact, OSHA did a study and found that the air particulate allowance in a smoking establishment was 20,000 times less than the allowable air particulate contaminants in their statutes.
I deal with OSHA regs on a daily basis, and I can tell you that if OSHA saw it as a safety issue, they would have stepped in a long time ago, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
Posted by Joey on February 09, 2008 at 1101 hrs
One minor clarification: if you own a bar, restaurant, clothing store, or other business and you serve the public, it’s a public establishment regardless of the private ownership. And, as pointed out, public establishments have to observe all sorts of regulations to ensure public health and safety (fire exits, kitchen cleanliness in restaurants, and so on). And the owner has limits on his/her choices regarding clientele—-for example, the owner is not free to exclude customers of a certain race, religion, disability, etc.
So far as the safety of secondhand smoke, a recent occurrence in Michigan might be helpful:
A young asthmatic woman who collapsed and died shortly after arriving for her shift as a waitress at a bar may be the first reported death to be reported nationally from acute asthma associated with environmental tobacco smoke.
This case report by a Michigan State University physician, published in the February edition of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, not only outlines circumstances under which the woman died, but also raises a number of issues regarding safety in the workplace. . . .
As an occupational and environmental health physician, Rosenman said he also is concerned about the long-term effects of ETS on all employees, not just those with pre-existing conditions like asthma.
“As a consumer, I don’t have to go into that bar,” he said. “But is it a safe environment for the employees? We have federal laws that say employers have to provide a safe and healthy workplace. This was clearly not a safe and healthy workplace for this employee.
“This death dramatizes the need to enact legal protections for workers in the hospitality industry from secondhand smoke.”
In the United States, 23 states have already banned smoking in restaurants and bars. A number of other states, including Michigan, are considering it.
While many bar and restaurant owners say a smoking ban would hurt business, Rosenman argues that just the opposite is true.
“Consider that 75 percent of the population doesn’t smoke,” he said. “Banning smoking could actually serve to increase business. Studies of restaurants and bars in Boston, New York City, San Francisco and Washington D.C. all show business up since they banned smoking. Chicago went smoke free the beginning of this year.
“We’re behind the times if we want to attract tourists and help businesses be more profitable.”
More at the link.
Posted by Leisureguy on February 09, 2008 at 1242 hrs
OTOH, from the current issue of Business Week:
As more states pass indoor smoking bans—Illinois and Maryland laws go into effect this year—policymakers are often told there’s no downside, says Michael Pakko, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “But I’m skeptical about free lunches,” he says. In the January issue of the St. Louis Fed’s Regional Economist, Pakko argues that such bans can lead to revenue and job losses. His study of Delaware’s three casino-racetracks found a loss of 15% in slot machine revenues in the 2 years after a clean-indoor-air act took effect in 2002. He also cites a 2001-04 nationwide study by two economists now at the universities of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) and South Carolina. It found smoking bans caused job declines of 4% at bars. “Smoking and drinking go together—they’re what we call ‘complementary goods,’ ” says Pakko, who acknowledges that the bans involve “public health as well as economic issues.”
Posted by Leisureguy on February 09, 2008 at 1318 hrs
if you own a bar, restaurant, clothing store, or other business and you serve the public, it’s a public establishment regardless of the private ownership. And, as pointed out, public establishments have to observe all sorts of regulations to ensure public health and safety
And all those public health and safety issues are very much agreed upon.
For example everyone agrees that food needs to be kept at certain temperatures. Patrons want to KNOW that food is safe to eat. Those health regulations are in place to provide safety for people because they would have no way to know. (they don’t get to inspect the kitchen etc)
Is ANYONE confused when they walk into a smokey bar that ITS F’n SMOKEY!!!!!! I don’t think so.
So just because there are SOME regulations on private establishments in and of itself provides absolutely no justification for a smoking ban.
If you walk into a bar and you don’t like the music you leave.
If I walk into a bar and I don’t like the smoke.. I LEAVE.
Its not all that difficult. What this is about is whiney ass people who can’t accept that they can’t have EVERYTHING they want.
If you hate smoke so much complain to EVERY bar and every restaurant you go into. But don’t go running to the government to impose your will on other people’s businesses.
So far as the safety of secondhand smoke, a recent occurrence in Michigan might be helpful:
Leisure guy, surely you aren’t suggesting that we form laws around every anecdotal story in the news are you? That would be foolish.
I know a girl that has execptionally strong peanut allergies. She went to work at a confection factory where they use peanuts. She died. Lets ban peanuts.
A young asthmatic woman who collapsed and died shortly after arriving for her shift as a waitress at a bar may be the first reported death to be reported nationally from acute asthma associated with environmental tobacco smoke.
Perhaps young women with known asthmatic conditions shouldn’t get a job cocktail waitressing at a bar?????????
Or maybe given this first and only known instance, we should pass draconian bans on smoking. that’s ripe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2008 at 1319 hrs
“Banning smoking could actually serve to increase business. Studies of restaurants and bars in Boston, New York City, San Francisco and Washington D.C. all show business up since they banned smoking. Chicago went smoke free the beginning of this year.
Well if business booms when you ban smoking why wouldn’t a profit minded bar owner on Water Street ban smoking in his bar????? Don’t they want to make as much money as they can? Why do you need to pass a law if it would be so profitable to ban smoking?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2008 at 1321 hrs
I was just trying to provide some facts, and also to clear up confusion about “private” vs. “public” establishment. Usually discussions about issues of this sort tend to be skimpy on facts, so I thought some would be welcome.
Posted by Leisureguy on February 09, 2008 at 1328 hrs
Regarding the woman who died as a result of secondhand smoke: it may be that she was told that secondhand smoke poses no safety problems, as Joey says, and unfortunately believed it.
Posted by Leisureguy on February 09, 2008 at 1516 hrs
I think distinguishing this “health” issue from “safety” issues is unneccesary. A smoking ban could be jusstified under the same reasons as OSHA is justified. However, OSHA sucks too. It’s costly and not necessary. I mean, electrician dude, would any owner of a company like yours insist on making their employees where flamable clothing? Wouldn’t the law suits be bad for business? Or XXXPilot, would any private gas station owner NOT have a no smoking policy by their pumps? That just wouldn’t make much sense. I mean, think about this:
Annual OSHA penalties for safety violations (2002): $149,000,000
Annual Workers Compensation Premiums (2001): $26,000,000,000
Estimated Annual Wage Premiums for Risky Activities (2004 dollars): $245,000,000,000
Do you really think OSHA is what makes business owners keep their businesses safe? It’s not. Market incentives for dwarf legal incentives, which dwarf regulatory incentives. The point is that even if business owners did not have to comply with OSHA, they still probably would for the most part. Obviously, smoking isn’t quite there yet. But that doesn’t tell us that the market is wrong. It tells us the proposed regulation is wrong.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on February 09, 2008 at 1654 hrs
JIJAWM,
Not to get off the topic, but the cost to comply with the OSHA regulations (NFPA 70E specifically) will cost us millions up front and the change in our business to maintain compliance will continue that cost annually. With the average fine for an arcflash injury between 1 and 4 million dollars, it definitely becomes a business decision whether or not to comply.
I still do not understand the fuss. In our society, we have given up our liberty (right or wrong) with regards to establishing completely private employment contracts. Just as the cocktail waitress should take personal responsibility for taking a job in a risky environment for her, the bar owner should take personal responsibility for complying with whatever regulations get passed-or don’t open your business. Last time I checked, there is no right to open a bar. You have to get a license (permission). Just as with a drivers license and the rules of the road, you agree to follow all the regulations that govern that business.
XXPILOT-what is the difference between health and safety? Isn’t safety related to anything that affects your health? Clothing, machine guards, fumes, etc.
Also, OSHA not looking at the environment in bars and restaurants is not the same as approving of the environment. It may merely mean that there has not been an incident for OSHA to investigate. Michigan may change that. Who knows?
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2008 at 1718 hrs
Studies of restaurants and bars in Boston, New York City, San Francisco and Washington D.C. all show business up since they banned smoking.
I need to see links and cites to the studies, so I can read what they say for themselves.
“Family restaurants” are not the same as nightclubs, so an overall “business up” does not mean that bars aren’t hurting.
Posted by HeatherRadish on February 09, 2008 at 2210 hrs
XXPILOT-what is the difference between health and safety? Isn’t safety related to anything that affects your health? Clothing, machine guards, fumes, etc.
Safety would be an immediate threat. Health would be a long term issue, Not as clear and causal.
For example… Smoking by a gas pump is a safety issue. You do it, things explode, people burn.
Big Mac’s and french fries are a health issue. You don’t explode when you eat them, but over time, it affects you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2008 at 0112 hrs
Some health issues, by the definition xxpilot suggests, come under the jurisdiction of OSHA. For example, a business must provide workers protection from carcinogens and other toxins used in the manufacturing process, even though the effects may not be immediate.
That sounds as though it would apply as well to ETS. From the story about the asthma death: “In 2006, the surgeon general’s report concluded that ETS causes coronary heart disease, lung cancer and premature death.” That certainly sounds as though workers should be protected against exposure.
Notice that the law doesn’t allow a manufacturer of, say, paint and gasoline additives to say, “People don’t have to work here—-they can choose to work elsewhere.” The manufacturer must provide a safe workplace. Period.
Posted by Leisureguy on February 10, 2008 at 1112 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134021
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 12:07 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 106
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 01:08 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).