A Civil Action
Although some of you may find this hard to believe, but a very good friend of mine is a big supporter of a total ban on smoking in Marion County. Obviously I disagree and our discussions can get pretty animated at times, despite that we are still good friends. My lovely wife thinks I’m nuts for some of the political views I hold, but she still loves me in spite of all that. The same thing with my parents. And there are some local elected officials who hold views I find offensive, but some strange reason we enjoy each other’s company over a beverage.
I bring this up because next week the City-County Council will hold its first hearing on a total smoking ban, and it’s probably going to be pretty contentious. Regardless, that is still no reason for anyone on either side to be anything but civil and respectful in the debate. I cringe at times when I look at the national discussion and see the silliness that is supposed to be dialogue. By the way, when did it become cool to call people “Nazis”? Did I miss the memo on that one? Both the left and the right are guilty of the vitriol and my other profession of talk radio doesn’t help much either. And even I will admit to falling into the pit on occasion.
However, if we are going to debate and discuss these important issues, be they local, state or national, the first order of business should be civility. That doesn’t mean a voice won’t be raised, but that doesn’t mean the rhetoric needs to follow. As my late grandmother used to say, “you can disagree, but don’t be ignorant about it.”
October 10th, 2009 at 8:14 am
My opinion on this is two-fold:
1) In the US we have a long history of development of worker safety practices. 100 years ago, workers had to put up with horrendous working conditions in the factories, mines, and farms. Now, most jobs are safe from egregious safety issues. One group that does not yet have this protection is the people who work in areas filled with cigarette smoke. It is time to extend the same type of protection offered long ago to factory workers, to those who work in bars and such. The oft-repeated argument that “workers can choose a different job if they don't like the smoke” ignores this history of development of worker safety. All workers deserve a safe working environment, just as they deserve at least a minimum wage.
2) The pro-smoking crowd has confused property rights with worker rights. If a person who owns a welding business chooses to weld, by themselves, without wearing welders goggles, that's OK. If a person who owns a bar wants to smoke in their bar, with no employees around, that's OK. Property rights are maintained. But when a bar owner takes someone into their employ, they become responsible for providing a safe work environment. Second hand smoke is not safe.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:14 am
You are so right. Thanks for the reminder. And here's one theory about the rancor in political discussion:
It started with, or got a tremendous boost under, Ronald Reagan. He had that infectious Irish grin but his political operatives–Atwater, Ailes et al–were vicious, vengeful idealogues who stopped to anything to accomplish their goals.
Reagan took their lead, and began a long-running “you're with me or you're unAmerican” diatribe. And DC Democrats, still stinging over their loss to Reagan, took every bit of the bait and fired back with equal or better zings.
GHWB and Clinton, to their credit, tried to steer away from this trend, but they couldn't completely divorce themselves from it. And GHWB's son elevated it to an art form, especially given the 9/11 aftermath.
Suddenly, anyone who dared question the civil rights stance of President GW Bush was labled as a terrorist sympathizer. That sad commentary is detailed in the book of GWB's former press secretary, Scott McCllelan. He admits the strategy. It was further aggravated by the national sense that GWB was not elected, but appointed by the Supremes. Indeed, he lost the election, but won in court. Folks were angry on both sides, and the nation was perfectly poised for the kind of national political nonsense that followed 9/11.
After eight years of that contentiousness, any public policy dialogue has been greatly diminished in tone, and sometimes in content. We all get caught up in it. It has “trickled down” to local discussions. It's a shame.
That said, this issue bothers me for one reason only: I've watched the CC Council a lot. In person and on Ch. 16. Collectively, there may be four or five brains operating at any one time. I know we get what we elect, but it's a frightening collection of folks.
But whichever way this ordinance goes, we all need to remember–tomorrow will come, and we'll all wake up, earn a living, pay taxes and conduct our lives.
So, a plea for civillity does not fall on deaf ears. Thanks for reminding us.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Amen, Abdul, Amen
October 10th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Guess by that reasoning, skyscrapers should be forced to get rid of those upper floors because they may present a threat to window washers who have a right to work at that occupation if they want to, but shouldn't be exposed to the possibility of falling 20 stories.
Or maybe it's more reasonable to mandate proper safety equipment for barmaids? Gas masks to protect the lungs, thickly-padded longcoats to protect them from wayward ass-pinchers. And decontamination chambers and company-paid laundry service to ensure nobody brings stray particulates home with them.
Sorry, I cannot recall an era when people were PREVENTED from wearing or using safety equipment prior to those things becoming ALLOWED for use through imposition of law.
Worker-safety laws, to a considerable extent, are devices for employer protection against lawsuits. That, and leverage for employees who must like the pay or benefits so much they won't leave a job having conditions they detest for one that suits their fancy.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Hmmmm. John Howard… I, and law schools across the nation, and courts almost everywhere, and legislatures, were previously uninformed about the true nature of worker-safety laws. Thanks so much for enlightening us.
October 10th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
It has been a long time since I have visited a bar. But, if I did I would now prefer one that people did not smoke. Should I support this ban on all smoking in public places or should I choose not to go into places that allow smoking? Myself I would seek out a bar that had a smoking ban instead of banning everybody that enjoys smoking. If you are for this smoking ban then you have nothing against the seat belt law or child safety seat law. As soon as they give us the fat tax on all products that have a certain level of sugar you will have to support that law also. Yes unigov, I still have the right to work or go into business that I does not have this so called smoking ban. Better yet if they want to do something real just banned the sell of all tobacco product in Marion county. Oops that would lose to many taxes.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Wow, my father died of lung cancer from smoking. Didn't think I would be accused of being part of the “pro-smoking crowd” since I detest smoking. Smoking is a legal activity. You are not required to work there if smoking bothers you and you don't have some right to patronize a smoking establishment. Let the free market decide the issue. It works well.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
My pleasure.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
What is comes down to is that Angela Mansfield and Benjamin Hunter want to take your rights away. Clear and simple. They think that the public is NOT smart enough to make an adult decision. The current ban in place IS working. If they get their way you will not be able to: Smoke in any bar or private club. This includes dance clubs, American Legions, and yes ABDUL adult entertainment/Gentlemen Showclubs. Individuals with three months to live in a nursing home could not smoke. Disabled Veterans at the American Legion could not smoke. Forget the Korean and Vietnam Veterans and what sacrfices they made. Forget the soldiers just back from Iraq or Afghanistan fighting the War on Terrorism. Even though cigarette smoke bothers me, thought thought of these two elected officials furth eroding our rights bother me even more. When is election day?
October 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
What is comes down to is that Angela Mansfield and Benjamin Hunter want to take your rights away. Clear and simple. They think that the public is NOT smart enough to make an adult decision. The current ban in place IS working. If they get their way you will not be able to: Smoke in any bar or private club. This includes dance clubs, American Legions, and yes ABDUL adult entertainment/Gentlemen Showclubs. Individuals with three months to live in a nursing home could not smoke. Disabled Veterans at the American Legion could not smoke. Forget the Korean and Vietnam Veterans and what sacrfices they made. Forget the soldiers just back from Iraq or Afghanistan fighting the War on Terrorism. Even though cigarette smoke bothers me, thought thought of these two elected officials furth eroding our rights bother me even more. When is election day?
October 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Well, I tried being civil until this comment came up:
“Guess by that reasoning, skyscrapers should be forced to get rid of those upper floors because they may present a threat to window washers who have a right to work at that occupation if they want to, but shouldn't be exposed to the possibility of falling 20 stories.”
FAIL
The parallel would be if companies that employed window washers didn't have to provide safety equipment.
I've never seen so many people confounded by such a simple issue. Employers do not have the legal or moral right to put their workers at risk, even if the workers accept that risk.
In John Howard's world, and the Libertarians', there are no worker rights. Farm workers should handle pesticides with their bare hands, factory workers would have no hearing protection or cams, nurses would have no latex gloves, and so on.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Are you even in the right thread ?
Do you realize Obama has continued renditioning, wiretaps, Gitmo, and is about to step up the nonsensical war in Afghanistan ?
October 11th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Individuals have rights. Groups don't have rights.
When a person asks for employment of a property owner and accepts an offer, do they not agree to the terms of that employment including what is likely an acknowledgement they are working in an environment were smoking is allowed? What about those who desire a working environment where they can smoke and are now potentially having that choice taken away from them?
October 11th, 2009 at 7:32 am
In answe to your question, Abdul, the answer is 1995, when the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld aired. Since then, it has returned to vogue to refer to folks who operate with a “my way or the highway” attitude.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Seriously, I think they should switch to an ordinance that requires proper safety equipment for everyone anyplace smoking is allowed. This is in keeping with what's apparently widely accepted status quo within the legal community and seemingly doesn't constitute any infringement of people's rights.
Gas masks and neoprene suits for everyone!
October 11th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Every recount gave G.W. Bush the election, you effing idiot. That is a fact. It was, in fact, the Supremes who stopped the Florida Supreme Court from stealing it for Gore. You don't deserve civility. You, and those of your ilk, are destroying this country and deserve to have your own words shoved down your throat. Some of us are….'Mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!'
October 12th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Here is some interesting statements I received from Ben Hunter.
1. “Loss of freedom:” No, this does not take a “right” away from anyone. No where does it define smoking as as a right in the U.S. Constitution. I do believe people are smart, as this measure is supported by about 80%.
2. I don't know of any nursing or any medical facility that currently allows smoking. Regardless I would never support a measure that stops anyone from smoking outdoors.
3. VFW/Military fighting for freedom: Interesting point each time it's raised to me and one of the reasons I changed my mind. The current national VFW president supports and is moving those clubs smoke-free. Military went and led the national movement to go smoke-free in 1994. In 2002 they extended to all military clubs, bars and bowling alleys. This is and has been supported by are U.S. Military.
4. Abdul's economic numbers are wrong. I say that in a very respectful way. He knows that but chooses to cling onto them as proof. No one indicator can equal one factor for loss. Studies have shown an increase in sales when smoke-free.
So the fight goes on. About the nursing homes Ben might be right but I wonder who is going to take that person in the wheel chair 60 feet from the door to smoke?
October 14th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
1) “Smoking” is behavior by individuals who overwhelmingly do not have a clue as to what they are smoking. They believe and are repeatedly told it's just “tobacco”, which is so far from the reality as to constitute mass consumer fraud and perhaps criminal misuse of public office by govt officials who perpetrate the same deceit. Why? To cover up for perhaps decades of complicity with the broad cigarette cartel…including tobacco pesticides, chlorine, pharms that make tobacco pesticides, ag biz that supplies so many non-organic (pesticide contaminated) ingredients, and all of their insurers and investors. Smokers are not warned about or protected from hosts of non-tobacco cigarette adulterants—even though they pay regulators to protect them from exactly such threats.
2) Without fail, the laws that justify smoking bans are based on bogus science…science that absurdly believes the cigarette industry marketing propaganda about the products being just tobacco, or tobacco at all in some cases. Many US Patents exist for “tobacco substitute material” (fake tobacco) designed to “simulate” tobacco taste, appearance, scent and texture—even though ALL of the cigarette stuffing may be made from…Peanut Shells…or “Popped Corn”. Homework: Search up Patent Numbers 3,978,866 and 3,964,395 (for starters). If a prosecutor finds dreaded and illegal Tobacco Smoke coming from that…well, we have another abuse of public office problem on our hands.
The zealous Anti Tobacco forces in govt can almost be guaranteed to have economic links TO the cigarette industry…not cig makers, of course, but the additives and adulterants suppliers (the pesticides and chlorine etc etc, and those insurers and investors). They are
perpetrating a mass Blame The Victims, and blame the conveniently “sinful” Public-Domain-Natural Plant, tobacco, charade to evade astronomical liabilities and criminal penalties.
See more at a site called “Fauxbacco” (a collection of relevant resource materials, etc.) and search up “Bill Drake Smoke and Illusion” for much more.
– If the smoke in question is not analyzed to see if it indeed is smoke from tobacco, we do not know what we are talking about, or legislating against.
– If the cigarettes in question are not fully described for content and analyzed for perhaps deadly non-tobacco adulterants, again, we do not know what we are talking or legislating about.
– If judges and jurors in “smoking” cases are not required to recuse themselves if they have economic links to the cigarette industry—especially the Hidden Parts (tobacco pesticides, chlorine, paper/pulp, ag biz that supplies additives, and the insurers-investors) we have a violation of Due Process of law.
– If judges and jurors have religious bias against “sinful” tobacco, same thing.
– If a juror had some relative or friend supposedly killed by “smoking” or “tobacco”, that's as much a bias as having a person with relatives killed by cops sitting in a trial about a police shooting.
NB: Anti smoking laws BENEFIT the cigarette industry, a prime supposed target of such laws. Big Cig is off the hook for adulterating their products with more deadly industrial things than can be found in any other product…or even in most industrial incinerators. “Tobacco”? Not by miles.
PS: The Medicis killed their enemies with wine spiked with arsenic. We all know the “dangers of drinking”…but it's Quite Another Thing when it's about drinking POISONED wine. We do not ban wine or drinking. Even the Florentines didn't do that. We act on those who poisoned it…unless, of course, they are like the Medicis and are “too big to fail”. Big Cig, too big to fail?
October 15th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
“When a person asks for employment of a property owner and accepts an offer,
do they not agree to the terms of that employment including what is likely
an acknowledgement they are working in an environment were smoking is
allowed?”
No. Employers cannot harm their employees, period, even if the employees
expressly or implicitly agree to the harm. Taken to the extreme, this would
lead us back to the scenario depcited by Upton Sinclair in his book “The
Jungle”: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5727/
“What about those who desire a working environment where they can smoke and
are now potentially having that choice taken away from them?”
Good question. I agree with your point if and only if the employee works by
themselves and does not inflict others and is not inflicted by others -
example – a truck driver. However, if the bar owner permits patrons or
other employees to smoke, that second-hand smoke would incrementally harm
the employee. An employer cannot harm an employee, so, the answer is, that
smoking is a choice, ir harms the smoker and all who breathe that air, so
no, the potential employee cannot voluntarily work in such an environment.
We read The Jungle back in high school, so that's the central tenet I'm
drawing from – an employer cannot maintain a harmful working environment.
I think the schism between my view and the pro-smoking view is that I
believe people do not have the right to subject themselves to harm. You
can't, for example, pay someone to have yourself killed if you are suffering
from terminal cancer.
Don't ask me about boxing !
October 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
You can't, but is that not something worthy of debate.
At the end of the day, you are the owner of your own body and no other person or group has a higher claim to it than you do.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Both smoker and non-smoker should look into Torch electronic cigarettes. When around non-smokers or in a public space where smoking laws come into play, this is a great solution to the problem.
A smoker can get the nicotine from a realistic-looking cig devise.
It lights on inhale, and expels a cloud of water vapor on exhale.
With no tobacco and nothing ignited, smoking laws do not apply.
A thinking non-smoker will appreciate that there is no secondhand smoke and no smell. No ash or butt to litter the environment or chance of fire.
Torch electronic cigarettes are respectful to the non-smoker. The smoker can replicate the physical and psychological desires and still get nicotine.
Heathier, safer and smarter.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Both smoker and non-smoker should look into Torch electronic cigarettes. When around non-smokers or in a public space where smoking laws come into play, this is a great solution to the problem.
A smoker can get the nicotine from a realistic-looking cig devise.
It lights on inhale, and expels a cloud of water vapor on exhale.
With no tobacco and nothing ignited, smoking laws do not apply.
A thinking non-smoker will appreciate that there is no secondhand smoke and no smell. No ash or butt to litter the environment or chance of fire.
Torch electronic cigarettes are respectful to the non-smoker. The smoker can replicate the physical and psychological desires and still get nicotine.
Heathier, safer and smarter.