Where There’s Smoke
My very reliable sources are telling me the anti-smoking people are about go at it again and try to push for a total public smoking ban in Marion County. Under the current law smoking is only allowed in places that are either not open to the public or only allow adults; a reasonable compromise that was worked out four years ago.
I don’t see why my anti-smoking friends would want to push for a total ban when the free market has addressed this issue. There are a number of smoke-free drinking and eating establishments in Marion County. Indy Jazz Fest went smoke free and my part-time employer, Crackers Comedy Club, has also gone smoke free. Consumers and workers have plenty of choice as to whether they want to patronize or work in a smoke-free environment.
In addition, a poll done by Smoke Free Indy shows more than 80% of the County’s population like the current compromise. So if everyone has choice and everyone likes the current compromise, what reason is there to change anything?
You ponder that while I’m having a cigar.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:28 am
I agree 100%/
September 28th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Since you multi task so well, while you are puffing away(a cancer causing behavior) why not page thru Super White's budget and regale us with the nuggets all of the diletantes have been coming up with for you?
September 28th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Pascal's use of the language always gives me a morning laugh. The day after Safire died, to boot.
It's a health issue, Abdul. Plainly and simply. And most progressive urban areas, as well as more than a few states, have done it.
The “public” argument goes like this: if your business can exist without a single interaction with government (permits, licenses, etc.), have at it. Smoke the rug if you want to. But if your business depends on government for its existence, then the govt. has a right to regulate “for the public good.”
Whether you or other blogreaders like that analysis, it's been used, and will continue to be used, for far more adversarial issues than smoking bans.
As for me, wherever I go in a public building, or a business that requires licenses, I don't want to deal with the smoke. It's disgusting. And unhealthy.
But if I were advising the folks who oppose this smoking ban, here's one thing I'd tell my supporters: stop throwing cig butts all over creation. Our streets and sidewalks are not your ashtrays.
The governmental units which have initiated these bans have reported no substantial problems. Indeed, California's, enacted in 1978, has produced none of the business slumps previously predicted. And Claifornians'lungs are actuarily among the healthiest in America.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:53 am
It's just more of the 'we need the government to run everything for us' mentality that's overrunning the USA.
And yes, I agree about the butts. I stopped at a light just yesterday and noted the curb along the left-turn lane was a mass of discarded butts.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:26 am
TA,
If you check my post you'll notice I've never said government can't do the regulation. I just maintain, it's not necessary because we have a reasonable compromise in Marion County that provides choice for the consumer, worker and owner.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Abdul, I wholeheartedly disagree. Think Again has it right. Nearly every American city of Indianapolis' size has banned smoking (Chicago and Dallas being the most recent that I can recall off the top of my head). The law will not only benefit City residents, but also visitors. I entertain many out of town guests and they can't believe that Indianapolis still allows smoking. Those out of town visitors do not knowwhich bars and restaurants allow smoking and therefore do not receive any benefit from your “free market” analysis. I do, but even I find it hard to find a good non-smoking bar that isn't ridiculously overcrowded precisely because it is a non-smoking bar.
Smoking introduces known carcinogens into closed environments. This should be open and shut.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:15 am
It's not about public health at this point. It's about control. I agree that establishments where children are allowed should be smoke-free. But adults should have the right to choose whether they want to be around smokers. There are plenty of smoke-free establishments for those offended by second-hand smoke. The anti-smoking types are never happy.
And shouldn't President ACORN be banned from smoking in our White House?
September 28th, 2009 at 11:07 am
So rather than the establishments taking it upon themselves to make their smokefree-ness known (e.g., listed in the hotel directories) we need the government to wield their hammer?
No, I don't think so.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
If the government is really that concerned about the health affects of smoking then ban cigarettes completely. But as long as cigarettes are legal – then private property owners should have the right to decide whether it should be allowed on their own property.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The last page of the textbook the ban lobbyists use instructs them to return every year until all exemptions are gone if allowing exemptions is the only way to get any bans passed. Allowing them to attend local meetings is the biggest mistake any town can make. Once they find gullible lawmakers, they will always be returning. They don't care how much businesses paid for renovations. Like the old snake oil salesmen they travel the nation pushing their bans. they have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. Here's the book that the tax exempt political action committees (charities) are using. read the last page. They be back, no matter how many years it takes.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
September 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Just a reminder of the sources of the bans, RWJ Foundation, owned by big pharma, and the coalitions, more concerned with “social change” than the bans themselves:
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the “inside -out”, provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Here's the “model ban” from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the “smoking ban for dummies” It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community according to the width of your sidewalks.
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229
September 28th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Abdul, I understand your point. But it's difficult to know which restaurants ban or don't ban. Your rant against smoking bans is interesting.
Tell me this: how does it hurt you to refrain from smoking ANYWHERE except the privacy of your own home or car? What possible harm is there, in banning smoke in all public places? Who gets hurt?
Rico, it's not about control. It IS about health. If you can't figure that out, step aside. Plenty of others have.
I'd be for a total ban, but…it wouldn't work. And our govt. has gotten so addicted to the cig taxes, that we'd have to replace that money somehow.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
So true Ban It Now. It is completely embarrassing to have guests come from out of Indiana (or even out of Indy) only to find we are still living in the past, smoking in bars, bowling alleys, etc. Throw in the fact that people work in these places so that they can pay their bills, and it's even more ridiculous that we keep the smoking going.
Let's do this now. Get rid of the smoke!
September 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
So, since plenty of others have 'figured it out', then it must be fact? The fallacies in your attempts at logic never cease. And I know smoking is unhealthy, but that really isn't the point. It's about government interference in private enterprises. Oh, no wonder you like it.
These anti-smoking groups will never be completely happy until smoking is banned. They don't believe in individual responsibility. Generally, these champions of the 'Nanny state' only promote individual choice when it involves killing the unborn.
Incidentally, bans on smoking in one's car or residence have already been instituted (at least attempted)in some cities across America. Rights are always taken away incrementally.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Honestly, I have nothing against this. Cities/counties and states are well within their right to prohibit such activity unless a state constitution prohibits this (And I don't know of one that does).
That being said, I'm not going to go out and campaign for it. I can tolerate smoke, and there are plenty of places that are smoke-free. But if it passes, I won't be losing any sleep.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Rico, you just don't get it. Stop making assumptions about my beliefs. You're wrong almost every time…”guilt by extension” never works. I give up.
I don't like a Nanny State, either. But I'm tired of paying the costs associated with smoking. We all do. Smoking bans work to promote public health–that's a proven fact. And it is not a loss of your rights because once you set foot into the public arena, your rights are absolute until they meet my rights–to clean air and clothes, for instance. In almost every principle of law that's the accepted baseline.
I won't capmaign for or against this either. Smoking is a disgusting habit that produces byproducts which make us ill. But the folks who don't want smoking bans, had better resort to some new tactics. The current ones aren't working.
As for knowing what restaurants allow or prohibit smoking–I've checked the popular establishments listed here and others. There is no mention of their smoking status in their Yellow Page ads, or elsewhere that I can find. It might be a good marketing technique, tho.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
We are discussing private businesses open to the public. That is not the same as public property. Government entities have the right, in my opinion, to ban smoking in government (public) buildings. How does it violate an individual's rights if he is afforded a choice of whether he frequents an establisment that allows smoking or not?
Are there costs to society? Sure(and another reason for insurance reform–not healthcare reform!). Is smoking more costly to society than, say, obesity? Some experts say no. Next on the list for these types is probably to illegalize fast food. Think I'm kidding? Wait and see.
And your Yellow Pages argument is pretty lame even for you. Ya know what else are in the Yellow Pages? Phone numbers. Use your famously fat fingers on your Blackberry and make a call. Wow! That was tough.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
45 more employees of Illinois casinos can now enjoy all the smoke free air they want since they got laid off. The Indian casino close to the Indiana state line has a huge area for expansion, enough to build separate buildings if needed. They probably see this coming. They'll probably join the lobbying effort for a smoke free Indiana, just like Illinois politicians asked Wisconsin to ban smoking to keep Illinois residents from going to their bars.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:19 am
General, you relaly think smoking laws are the reason those folks lost their jobs?
Rico, the Yellow Pages point was–and still is–that I couldn't find any establishments there (or elsewhere) that indicated, via ads, whether they allowed smoking or not. My thumbs are fat, but my head isn't.
Try to keep up, huh?
September 29th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Oh yeah–look up “”public acocmodation.” Any business that opens its doors to the public, exposes itself to government regulation. From Revenue licenses to zoning and fire-inspection laws. For our safety, tax collection, access, etc.
No business opens its doors in a vacuum. Which public ordinances would you suggest businesses start ignoring? Is a smoking ordinance more or less problematic than plumbing ordinances? Or safety ordinances? Or state tax revenue statutes?
Government has a right and an obligation to impose and enforce health and safety regulations. It has been so since we became a republic.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:26 am
If health is the primary concern, how long till we have a ban on alcohol consumption, being fat, practicing good hygene? Its all about health right???
September 30th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
If health is the primary concern, how long till we have a ban on alcohol consumption, being fat, practicing good hygene? Its all about health right???