I agree. If I were a US citizen, then I would join your campaign. The situation in England is just as oppressive.
Although I do agree with smoking bans in public areas as a matter of philosophical consistency, greater leeway should exist in order to facilitate smoking in dedicated environments, which adult smokers enter as a matter of personal choice. In the UK smoking was banned completely in public areas, including, e.g., pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants, train stations and airports. Whereas on a recent trip to Ireland I noticed that secluded provisions for smokers did exist in spite of the smoking ban. Thus, pubs, bars, etc., even airports had smoking areas. We also have technology at our disposal which can contain and filter second hand smoke in dedicated environments and prevent contamination of areas frequented by non smokers.
As regards the levels of taxation levied in the UK and elsewhere, these are absolutely non-sensical, one could say unjust. The frequently cited argument in support of the high levels of tobacco taxation in the UK is that smokers are a fiscal burden. At first glance, the alleged fiscal 'burden' due to apparently increased health costs would actually put cigar and pipe smokers in a favourable light, as their risk of illness, provided that they do not inhale, is significantly lower than that of cigarette smokers. Yet, the fiscal 'burden' argument is hogwash. Indeed, smokers are a double fiscal whammy for the state: it collects an exorbitant amount of taxes during the smoker's lifetime, and, because of the smoker's decreased statistical lifespan, the state saves money by not having to shell out for old age provisions - fewer hip replacements, etc, which account for a tremendous amount of any public health spending. Furthermore, there are many other activities and goods which represent a fiscal burden, but the taxes levied on these activities and goods are significantly lower. Other harmful activities are also often not vilified to the same extent as smoking: consider for example bans on smoking advertisement, whereas advertisements for alcohol continue. Neither should be banned, but to ban one and not the other is surely inconsistent.
Yet, this is really beside the central issue in that the whole matter is about freedom. If no harm to others is caused, then government interference is unwarranted. To ban smoking in businesses which welcome smokers, and which non-smokers are not forced to frequent, and to levy disproportionate taxes is unjust and a curtailment of liberty
Thank you, excellent post BTW.
ResIpsa said:
I disagree James to a certain extent.
I think that what gets lost in these discussions to a certain extent is the fact that the "public health" concerns behind the anti-smoking laws in NY, and in a lot of places, have little to do with the patrons, and everything to do with the employees. Sure, patrons can go elsewhere, etc etc etc. but the employees are a captive audience so to speak, subjected to the smoke. In the same way the government put an end to sweat shops, created OSHA, etc etc etc, they are acting now. (sure the employees can work elsewhere, different argument for a different day.)
Not saying I agree with smoking bans, just pointing out that it's not the patrons being protected, so much as the employees.
pnoon said:
Excellent point, Vic. And great points being made by others, too.
I would like to see new establishments, where there are no pre-existing employees be exempt from the indoor smoking bans. Prospective employees and patrons alike can make their choice.
Personally, I like the fact that restaurants are smoke-free indoors.
Thank you.
James, (if I may, since we're not really known to one another except by username; feel free to call me Joe...or whatever
) it's not that I don't see your point of view; it's that business unregulated with regard to certain issues, will ALWAYS take the easy way out - more accurately, the position which pisses off the least of their customer base.
We need to be reminded that in 1963, this same country had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights era.
It's true; the majority in America was against regulation to ensure that blacks and other minorities were not discriminated against.
The difference here is that this time, the majority of the public is in favor of smoking bans. It is a vocal minority which claims that its rights are being infringed.
In a case such as smoking bans, businesses will never protect any interest other than their own until mandated to do so by government.
By enacting the bans
desired by the overwhelming majority of voters, they are in effect relieving those businesses of having to be the bad guy, and giving them the ability to blame "big government" for something that even they mostly recognize was, and is, a necessary step.
Now, lest we lose sight of the issue: it is whether we cigar and pipe smokers should have the privilege of an exemption to existing smoking bans, which allow for the existence of Cigar Bars and Lounges.
This really isn't about the bans themselves, although discussion in that direction is inevitable in a related topic.
Like pnoon, I am 100% in favor of Cigar Bars.
I am also 100% in favor of the bans on smoking cigarettes indoors, given the noxious and harmful nature of cigarette smoke versus the smoke from tobacco with no additives, such as that in cigars and pipe tobacco.
I like dining out at an expensive steakhouse and being free of the annoyance of another patron making my $50 filet taste like a f*cking Marlboro, because the restaurant owner was too concerned about pissing mokes like him off to require that he refrain from doing so.
Or for that matter, his goddam Cohiba!
Taking the burden of choice, in this case, from the business owner makes perfect sense, and allows everyone to live in harmony.
And bitch.
