When Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, Make a Choice

Smoke Free Indy, an organization dedicated to banning all smoking in Indianapolis, held an open house downtown Thursday a smoke free restaurant to extol the virtues of smoke-free work environment and to stress the point that employees should not have to choose between clean air and their job.

I would argue that by holding an open house in a smoke free place Smoke Free Indy undermines its own argument. Right now a business in Indianapolis has a choice to go smoking or non-smoking. If it decides to go smoking it cannot allow anyone in their establishment under the age of 18. In addition, anyone who wants to exercise their right to work in a smoke free environment can. And anyone who wants to patronize a smoke-free drinking establishment can.

By holding an event in a smoke-free environment, Smoke Free Indy has demonstrated the power of choice. They have patronized an establishment that chose to go smoke free, the tipped servers who exercised their right to breathe smoke free air and chose to work in smoke free workplace and they dined with other customers who chose to eat in a place that did not allow smoking.

The free market is working because businesses, workers and customers are making choices and exercising their rights. It would be one thing if there was no compromise in place, but there is. And it is working. Smoke Free Indy knows it. And now so do you. So whether you’re a business owner, server or patron go out and enjoy your evening in either a smoking or non-smoking environment.

It’s your choice.

Posted: 01|30|09 at 8:22 am by Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
Follow this entry via RSS 2.0. Comment | Trackback

Robert-NW Side

Government won't ban all tobacco products. Otherwise, it would lose over $350 million per year in tax revenue.
-
California has 'clean air'. Well, I'm sure that there are some places in Cali that have 'clean air'.
-
I don't think I would include Los Angeles in that category.
-
I don't see the 'smoke-Nazis' screeching about the smog. How about our "No-Zone" action days...the old, young, and those with breathing problems suffer on those days...where is the screeching of 'death-camps' about that ???
-
It's all about baby-steps. During the debates before the last 'ban' was imposed, the smoke-Nazi's said that their goal was NOT a complete ban.
-
Of course, this was a lie. Same thing happens with firearms, etc. Chip away at it in small bits...get the People used to the new 'restrictions', then go for more restrictions.
-
Repeat until ultimate goal is achieved.
ChicagoMatt

Well I live in the suburbs of Chicago where they have banned smoking in just about every place besides your bathroom, in the dark, under the blanket with the fan on. Does anybody know of a place near the Indiana/Illinois border off of I-80 where I can get a cup of coffe and smoke. I would REALLY appreciate it!

I have great admiration towards the people of Indiana for "keeping it real" on many fronts and issues as it affects individual liberties. I am a veteran that has served over 2 years oversees during wartime. As a general rule I have noticed that in all countries on all issues that all attempts to regulate the "individual" behaviors of a population through law, most always leads to a "slippery slope" effect on all individual liberties that progresses over time.

It make take years for them to "pull the wool" totally over our eyes but I promise you it will happen at this rate. Hilter achieved this control by slowly reducing the rights and liberties of one group at a time as to avoid widespread revolt. The unaffected groups could care less seeing as it "wasnt them"...and well we all know how that story ended...enentually nobody had rights! Traffic cameras, illegal phone monitoring, personal data collection, seat belt laws, smoking bans, gun control.....these are all mean to an end.

Keep "keeping it real" Indiana. Dont forget to help me on my question from the top.
buer37

Excuse me. But if smoking is so darn harmful that it needs laws to protect individuals from their own choices to partake therein, than why not focus resources on shutting down the whole darn industry?
For all the federal warnings on product packaging, all the government sponsored (paid for by taxes)smoking cessation programs, all the funds for production/ free air time given to anti-smoking public service announcements, SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL! If a majority of people want to take the choice of risk away from a non majority of people, then take the big step to make it an illegal substance.

My guess is that many of the same folks fighting against the dangers of smoking, wish that marijuana could be legalized, so they don't have to hide in their mary jane smoke filled homes.

AND.....if we're so worried about harm brought to others by imposing our "dirty" habits on others, why not ban alcohol being sold in public places. Drunk drivers kill, drunk dirty old men grope, drunk women lose control, have sex, and then cry "rape".

Again, if smoking is that harmful, ban it altogether. It wouldn't be the first time the government banned a harmful substance.
John Doe

"Your home is not above the law. Murders happen in homes, child abuse happens in homes. Theft happens and rape happens in homes. Yes, there are penalties for thinking you are above the law, even in your home. You are responsible for your actions even in your own home on your own property. If you disagree, take it up with the lawmakers."

The waitress/waiter/bartender who works in a smoking place is there of their own free will. So while their business is not above the law, they are making their own choice. In your example, are you telling us the rape victim choose to be raped? The murder victim willing decided to be murdered? That the theft victim willingly allow their stuff to be stolen?

Also, to me, if we are going to ban smoking, we should ban all engines ran by fuels. If you sit in a garage with people smoking, you won't die within hours. If you sit in your garage with a car running, you will die within hours. Which is more deadly?
TJ

Thank God there is an organization that is fighting the good fight for the mute servers and other restaurant workers! They must be retarded as well to work in such horrible conditions. I'd rather work at Chernobyl, then wading through the sea of toxic fumes that I may overdose off of before I finish my pint of beer, or two, or three. It's not like there are any restaurant staff members that SMOKE either. They are all SMOKE FREE themselves and should never be subjected to free choice of employment. It's not like they decided, on their own free will, to work at a smoking establishment. We all know they were forced, by big bad tobacco companies, to work at these smoking locations. I don't think restaurant owners should be able to decide who their market is either. I mean, that's just silly! We should do our best to eliminate competition in the market place. I would go one step further in these bars and restaurants. I think the State should completely regulate the music on the establishment's jukeboxes as well. I'm sure there are plenty of staff that are close to having their ears bleed the next time someone plays Journey for the 30th time that night. I know mine always are when I go out. Can we also work on banning fat chicks from the dance floor? One, it's just too much jelly shaking and two, the resulting dancing causes way too much seismic activity and I'm constantly spilling my drinks. Not cool.
patriot paul

To: Daw-g

Guess I thought they were my friends. I applaud your example and is a good model to follow. I'll use it next time (if there is a next time) as well as examine those who claim to be friends.
Daw-g

Patriot Paul: The toxic fumes must not have been so bad. You stayed there long enough for it to drench your clothes to the point they needed to be dry cleaned. How smart was that? Exactly how important is this meeting that you WILLINGLY subjected yourself to the noxious 2nd hand smoke?
.
No were it me, I would have left the moment I got irritated. In fact my wife and I visited an eatery last year where smoking was allowed. We walked in and was immediately assaulted by smoke. The hostess came to seat us in the "non-smoking" section. We politely thanked her and left. We didn't go subject ourselves to smoke and then complain about it. That's not very bright.
patriot paul

Mike, fyi..
as an aside, the story in #5 came from a Libertarian meet-up that emailed the invitation with the restaurant's website link in advance. Putting aside all other issues, several in the group lit up cigs.and cigars as people next to them ate food at the same table. No smoker asked me 'do you mind if I smoke?' or 'will this bother you?' or shared any other concern or common courtesy for other's well-being, than their self indulgence. Considering the mantra of not trampling on the rights of others, I am amazed at the self-indulgence and total lack of respect. And this coming from the Party of Principle that supposed to be aware of others.
patriot paul

Your home is not above the law. Murders happen in homes, child abuse happens in homes. Theft happens and rape happens in homes. Yes, there are penalties for thinking you are above the law, even in your home. You are responsible for your actions even in your own home on your own property. If you disagree, take it up with the lawmakers.
Mike Kole

Paul, where is the 'aggression'? Is a business owner forcing a patron to be there? An employee?

The real aggression is when government says, 'this is your property, but we'll tell you how to operate it'.
patriot paul

If a pregnant mother is shot dead, it is a double homicide. If the fetus is endangered, we have laws on infeticide. You'll have to look up what other remedy is available or should be. dunno
Abdul Hakim-Shabazz

Which goes to my question...

Should a pregnant woman who smokes be charged with child abuse or reckless endangerment?
patriot paul

Abdul,
I know about cocaine babies; not so much about smoker babies.
On an aside, someone mentioned let the market determine the smoking matter. I suppose that could have been said about slavery too. Our laws and the market place did not overturn slavery. It took the head of the government by executive order called the emancipation proclamation to stop the abuse.
Daw-g

Abdul...good point because you see, according to some people, when you smoke you're exhaling toxic fumes. Hell...anyone who smokes around a child might as well detonate a bug bomb in the same room with the child.
patriot paul

To: mike kole, in my opinion you are on the wrong side of this issue as most libertarians. You forgot the pillar of non-aggression. You can smoke all day as you like, just don't let your unseen killer smoke aggress into my airspace. If you can find a way to fix that, 2 thumbs up. Smokers are the aggressor; not me. There should be no infringement on my liberty to breath clean air in a work environment.
To: abdul, you have a point.
If parents cannot control cancer sticks around children in the home, then I would have no problem calling child services to stop the abuse. Child abuse comes in a variety of ways. This one is just more insidious.
To: Chris Ward
I used to believe that too but it betrays the libertarian non-aggression policy. In short, live and let live unless you trample on my rights. Why is it that libertarians want to shout liberty but leave out the other half of the equation. What you decide for yourself is your personal business, but don't let the effect of what you do aggress into my air space & kill me in the process. The cavalier answer I hear is if non-smokers object, then quit your job. We are not asking YOU to quit your job; just excuse yourself outside if you indulge in this habit. Absent that, let the nanny government decide. Ohio, Illinois and many others already have. If you can find where our governing documents hold an exemption for businesses becoming death camps, let us know. Some have perverted the Constitution as the right to death, liberty, etc. Not so! Life is the inalienable right that came from the Creator and the government is here for it's defense.
Abdul Hakim-Shabazz

So should a pregnant woman who smokes be charged with child abuse?
whatyousay

This reminds me of the pregnant woman with a cigarette hanging out her mouth and proclaims, "well my Mom smoked when she was pregnant and look at me, I turned out just fine".
With all the recent studies of cigarettes and second hand smoke can we not look a little educated here in the state of Indiana? I mean they showed evidence that the hospitalization rate for heart trouble relating to smoking and second hand smoke had been reduced by 41% in a city in Colorado where they went smoke free.

If our kids can deal with it in Bloomington, I think we can learn to adapt.

Actually it would level the playing field if all establishments were smoke free.
Abdul Hakim-Shabazz

I think some of you are missing the point. I am not saying the government should NOT regulate workplaces, it has the authority and should exercise it.

The bigger question is simple "is the current compromise effective and is it enough."

I argue the current system works by allowing choice for all businesses, employees and consumers. Some of you may disagree, but this is why we have process to debate and discuss the issues and make our voices heard to the policy makers.

I will say this thought, if you anti-smoking people really want to make a difference, why don't you fight for a law that would ban smoking in homes with children and make a law so that in child custody proceedings, the non-smoking parent automatically gets custody. Remember, children usually have no choice about where they spend their time, grown people do.
Think Again

Wow, Chris...in this economy, how gallant of you to "offer" to work elsewhere.

This is a close call for me, but businesses exist at the behest of government. Business licenses and regulation are part of their very being...so the libertarian argument put forth herein is limp, at best. (Which business ordinances should be ignored? How about the "Exit" sign ordinance? That's a bad one, to some folks...)

This is not about choice, it's about health. And it's about courtesy, but that gets lost in the argument somewhere. I apologize in advance to all you smokers who think we non-smokers are sometimes rude, because that isn't polite. But damn, smokers: pick up after yourselves, quit using out sidewalks and streets as your personal ashtrays, and think about someone other than yourself.

This ordinance will happen...sooner or later. The studies prove nothing. The economy sucks and business is down. No one ever mentions California, which has had a Clean Indoor Air staute since 1978. Guess who, coincidentally, has the cleanest lungs in America, thus potentially lower health costs?

Yeah, that's right, the left-coasters. They're onto something in this case.
Mike Kole

A business owner spray chemicals in the air? That's about as absurd a response as possible.

Be careful of your slippery slopes, Paul. I see your position on workplaces. Businesses are somehow not private property by virtue of being places of public accommodation. Ok. I imagine you make a distinction for homes.

Very well, but what about homes where domestic help is employed. Is that now a workplace? It certainly is for the employee. Should smoking thus be banned in the homes? What about when the HVAC guy visits a house to service the equipment? Certain that home is a workplace to him in the hour he's there.

How long before American workplaces cause all workers to stop production and do exercises, like in Japan, in the name of public health?

Slippery slope, 'Patriot' Paul. The slope leads straight towards complete control & command government.
Lindsay

Daw-g,
I think what Lola was trying to get at, is that the business owner wouldn't be allowed to knowingly spray deadly chemicals in the airs, such as aresenic (sp). As it is against the law to do so, and if he did, he could be sued and even prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's not always about you as the consumer.
Chris Ward

As one who works in the hospitality industry where smoking IS allowed, I do it of my own choice. I am aware of the dangers of second hand smoke. If I don't like the situation, I can simply work somewhere else.
Jerry

Patriot Paul: Sometimes your argument is the exact opposite of a "patriot" . . . unless you are a New England fan.
-
Did you forget to capitalize LIBERTY? Did you also forget that business owners are CITIZENS?
-
Did you even forget that you have the liberty to choose not to be "murdered" in a smoking establishment?
-
Maybe we should call you Forgetful Paul.
patriot paul

I agree with Lola and Gene. Our constitution covers right to LIFE, liberty, etc. and pertains to CITIZENS; not some special entity called a business as if that was somehow accorded special rights to kill people with negligent food preparation and chronic air violations. There is no supposed 'right' to murder people and hide behind an entity called a business. Free enterprise is not free to murder.
Daw-g

Lola. If a business wanted to spray chemicals in the air I didn't approve of then I would go eat a steak dinner somewhere else. If I were an employee looking for work and didn't want to breathe noxious fumes I'd go somewhere else for work.
.
That's a dumb argument.
Gene

omg, I agree with someone - Lola.

Abdul and "Mike Kole" - workers cannot be subjected to harmful conditions even if the agree to it. Should we go back to the days of "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair ?

-> http://www.classicreader.com/book/425/13/

How about we get rid of all the safety equipment at factories ? Let the factory owner decide. It's a free country according to Abdul....
Lola

I disagree with all of the letters here so far.
The fundamental flaw in the argument "let businesses decide” is that we are talking about people's health.

Should we let businesses decide if they would every few minutes spray workers and customers with a gas containing formaldehyde, benzene, acetone and polonium-210 because they enjoy doing that? This is what you are saying. Maybe they should be able to do this only after 9 pm. Oh no – wait- The air is still the same in the morning as the night before.

Under our government we do not allow one’s “joys” or “pleasures” to override another’s health. You cannot drink and drive. You cannot serve undercooked chicken. You cannot dump excess chemicals into the nearby stream. You cannot butcher meat in a room filled with roaches, maggots etc…All of these laws have been created because of our learning that they save lives. Also businesses without restraint will try to save money or make money without care as to who they harm.

As for comments about "growing a pair" Do you mean breasts or ovaries? I am not a "whiny little bitch" either but someone who believes that all workers should be protected not just those who wear a suit and tie to work. Ad hominem attacks on opponents are not conducive to a well rounded and intelligent debate.
patriot paul

On Jan.19th, I visited with a group meeting at Andrus O'Reilly's at 46 S.Penn. I don't care for smoking establishments, so I checked the website and found: http://www.andrusoreillys.com/index.php
"We allow smoking and you must be 21 to enter, but our advanced air filtration system could fool even the pickiest non-smokers into thinking that this is a non-smoking establishment". It goes on to say they have a 'smoking section', leading me to believe there must be a non-smoking section as well.
My error. This was a full smoking establishment and group members took advantage of it. When I got home, my eyes were irritated and clothes reeked with cigar & cigarette stench. I wondered who was going to pay the drycleaning bill and after emails, they offered $25.00 and asked the best way to get it to me. I'll give them credit for that, but not the misleading notion about their miracle air filtration. As I could see straight into their smoke-filled kitchen, they brought out salids & burgers, I wondered how many contaminants my friends would absorb. Certainly they have the responsibility to make their own decisions, even if unhealthy ones, but I will not be subjected to a scenario like this again. Anyone on top of the latest reports knows that 2nd hand smoke is vicious and kills. The restaurant said that smoking gives them an edge downtown. I'll let others decide the morality of that one.
Lindsay

In response to Mike who believes that these types of laws hurt businesses.

In pretty much EVERY peer reviewed, scientific study conducted regarding eliminating smoking from a business, it shows either there is 1. no loss of business, or 2. a noticable increase.
There are studies that show otherwise, but all of those studies can be proven that they were funded by the tobacco industries. The US Surgeoun General released a study in 2006 regarding a comprehensive review of all of the studies. You can google it.

You can simply look at history as the best example for this...airlines, coffee houses, banks, groceries even hospitals all said they were going to go out of business if people weren't allowed to smoke. We know this is a false claim. Indianapolis needs to catch up with the rest of the county, and world for that matter. Again, Indianapolis has fallen behind the times and as Abdul mentioned numerous times when Mitch took over, why are people so afraid of chage? Move over people.
Jerry

Brilliant Post Abdul!
Mad Mike

As a non-smoker I say no to total smoking bans. If you want an establishment stop being a whiney little bitch and go talk to the management. If enough people that want the place to be smoke free grow a pair and tell management that they want the place to go smoke free or they will spend their money elsewhere then management will have to make a choice. But if more smokers than non-smokers grow a pair then the business owner is within his/hers financial right to serve those who will bring them more money.

Cornerstone used to be our coffee house. They went smoking, thus our kids cannot go in and get a hot chocolate or what not. They lost our business and now the Monon Coffee Company has us as a loyal buyer of two double grande mochas and a house smoothie every Saturday and two double grande mochas every Sunday. I let Cornerstone know my thoughts and obviously the loss of my money has not hurt them over the years so I guess both of us made a good choice.
Mike Kole

A blanket smoking ban hurts those businesses that include a voluntary no-smoke policy, as they lose that aspect of their business plan to other businesses that wouldn't have offered such an environment. So, in that way, the proponents of the ban undermine their support.

In the end, in a free country, property owners should be left to choose their policies. Maybe cause businesses to post their policy clearly on the entrance. Then, customers can choose whether or not to enter.

The argument of having to choose between one's job and one's health is bunk. It implies that the job the person in a smoking environment has is the only one they could possibly hold. Now, that may be true of the exceptionally stupid, but I tend to think the average American has a little more to offer than the insect-level specialization of a solitary skill, and thus, even in a tough economy, the ability to gain employment in a smoke-free environment, if that is the most crucial factor for them.

We're creating a country of marshmallows who are incapable of decision-making.

Home

Join

Main Menu

IB HOT LINK

Recent Comments

Links

FOLLOW IB

When Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, Make a Choice

RSS

Email Subscription

Search

Tags

Blog Audio Subscribe

Archives

Top IB’ers