Smoking ban in Houston.
- Thread starter mnorwood
- Start date
"The assumption that governments know more about what would work for businesses better than the business owners is ludicrous. Even the dumbest business owner is usually degrees more advanced in knowing how to satisfy his clients than a bureaucrat. "
Of course business owners know what is best for businesses. No sane person would ever question that. What business owners are not good at is ensuring the safety of their customers/employees/anyone else. If business owners did what was good for their customers, they would run around the room stealing packs of Marlboros.
The best thing for most pool room owners to do is allow smoking. They are at a huge disadvantage compared to those halls that don't allow it. Ideally, you would like to see that disadvantage switched to those that allow it. That is what bans that allow separate ventilation systems do.
The points about being paid more for hazardous work are not entirely valid, because typically you are only paid more if there is a high perceived risk. Clearly, the risk of smoking is high, but the perceived risk is shockingly low. You are only paid more for a dangerous job if everyone knows it's dangerous and they can't find many people to do it.
As for the points about big government taking away rights/doing stupid stuff: Most of these bans are local. Some are by referendum. I don't think the Feds should ban smoking. I don't think they should do much, frankly.
Tangent: I go to the bar, buy a beer, sit down next to you while you're shooting. You don't drink. I drink, we both get drunk because of our proximity. I go to my dealer, buy some heroin, shoot up next to you, we both get high... Is it my right to make you drunk and high, just because we happen to be in the same place? Even though the owner of the establishment says it's ok? I'm not sure it is, I'm not sure it isn't. I'm sure my bar tab would be smaller... What about some pool hall with lots of customers, in spite of the fact that once a week someone ends up dead there. Everyone knows it, they still go. Should it be shut down?
Of course business owners know what is best for businesses. No sane person would ever question that. What business owners are not good at is ensuring the safety of their customers/employees/anyone else. If business owners did what was good for their customers, they would run around the room stealing packs of Marlboros.
The best thing for most pool room owners to do is allow smoking. They are at a huge disadvantage compared to those halls that don't allow it. Ideally, you would like to see that disadvantage switched to those that allow it. That is what bans that allow separate ventilation systems do.
The points about being paid more for hazardous work are not entirely valid, because typically you are only paid more if there is a high perceived risk. Clearly, the risk of smoking is high, but the perceived risk is shockingly low. You are only paid more for a dangerous job if everyone knows it's dangerous and they can't find many people to do it.
As for the points about big government taking away rights/doing stupid stuff: Most of these bans are local. Some are by referendum. I don't think the Feds should ban smoking. I don't think they should do much, frankly.
Tangent: I go to the bar, buy a beer, sit down next to you while you're shooting. You don't drink. I drink, we both get drunk because of our proximity. I go to my dealer, buy some heroin, shoot up next to you, we both get high... Is it my right to make you drunk and high, just because we happen to be in the same place? Even though the owner of the establishment says it's ok? I'm not sure it is, I'm not sure it isn't. I'm sure my bar tab would be smaller... What about some pool hall with lots of customers, in spite of the fact that once a week someone ends up dead there. Everyone knows it, they still go. Should it be shut down?
Arsenius,arsenius said:
No, I don't believe such a place should be shut down.
With children, parents must oversee, instruct, control them to ensure their safety. When a government or local council sets out to tell the people what they can do on their own properties, in affairs that do not aggress upon other's properties then they are assuming a role of parents with the citizens as children.
This is the concept of the nanny state, and what it will achieve is a country of children who pass all their responsibilities onto the state.
People will do things that endager their health, but that is part of the process of growing up.
A business should be free to not allow its customers to smoke or not smoke. Let the customers choose where they prefer to be.
Re: Your shooting up next to me with the property owner's permission, I am free to leave if I feel offended or threatened by it.
Colin
wayne said:
No, I asked YOU to explain why YOU think his post is the dumbest. Don't throw YOUR comment onto someone else's shoulders. Responsibility is what it is called.
Or can't you tell us why you insulted his post without evidence?
Oh, and I thought his post was the best he's ever had here, drunk or not. Why? (see, I give rational reasons for my "feelings") He stated the truth, mixed with righteous emotions, something desperately needed when the initation of violence is advocated.
YOUR turn,
Jeff Livingston
Let me give a personal example how the smoking ban negatively affected me...a non-smoker.
Before MA was smoke free about 2 years or so ago, I would go over to Country Club Billiards every friday to shoot some pool with my work buddies, since CCB was conveniently open during the lunch hours of thursdays and fridays.
When MA went smoke free, CCB had to cut their hours to compensate for the decrease in clientele. That meant no more pool during lunch hours. That really sucked for me, since that's the only time in my week that I could afford to play some pool.
So now instead of averaging 1 hour of pool a week, I now average 1 hour of pool a month...all thanks to the smoking ban.
BTW, I HATE smoke!
Before MA was smoke free about 2 years or so ago, I would go over to Country Club Billiards every friday to shoot some pool with my work buddies, since CCB was conveniently open during the lunch hours of thursdays and fridays.
When MA went smoke free, CCB had to cut their hours to compensate for the decrease in clientele. That meant no more pool during lunch hours. That really sucked for me, since that's the only time in my week that I could afford to play some pool.
So now instead of averaging 1 hour of pool a week, I now average 1 hour of pool a month...all thanks to the smoking ban.
BTW, I HATE smoke!
What strikes me is the redundant selfish responses of the pro smoking contingent. Smoking in an enclosed environment is a proven deadly health hazard to others...still you protest about your rights and the rights of the business owners. What about my rights and the rights of all the other people who do not want to inhale your 2nd hand smoke? That never seems to take precedent...no, we are suppose to either put up with it or quite playing pool? When all your being asked to do is step outside.
I just do not think that is a lot to ask, when this habbit/addiction of yours so negatively effects others. But then it is not about others it is all about you isn't it? I find it interesting when smokers smoke, they blow the smoke away from themselves...in of itself a very self centered act.
The only real comparable action that has been mentioned, that truly effects others in the same way, is drunk driving. I suppose your same arguments against government interference could be applied to that? After all, if you have a drivers license and your of legal age to drink, why should anyone not be allowed to operate your very own vehicle? I mean, any moron should know if they go out on the road they might meet up with someone who has had a few to many! Isn't that an assumed risk we all are willingly taking when we drive? It's a personal right and that is their problem if they got in your path when you crossed the median, no? If they have a problem with it they should just stay home!
IMO, if smokers were considerate and really cared about others and personal rights, they would naturally do the right thing and just step outside. But that is not the society we live in and that is why we need laws to make our world healthier. Business owners are in a tough position no doubt, I am certain that most would prefer a non smoking room, much cleaner and easier to keep that way. It purely the financial factor that prevents most from voluntarily choosing to create that environment, so when you argue it should be their choice, you know they really do not have that choice to alienate a large part of their clientele, even if the wanted too!
...and the funny thing about all this, after NYC went non smoking, a lot of my smoking friends, admitted they preferred it as well! It makes for a much more pleasant environment for everyone!
I mean how many of you hardcore smokers that own your homes smoke in them? If you do...you can knock 20,000 to 50,000 off the resale value and that goes for your cars too! And if you don't, then I have to wonder why you think it is okay to subject others to something you would not subject you own couch too?
I just do not think that is a lot to ask, when this habbit/addiction of yours so negatively effects others. But then it is not about others it is all about you isn't it? I find it interesting when smokers smoke, they blow the smoke away from themselves...in of itself a very self centered act.
The only real comparable action that has been mentioned, that truly effects others in the same way, is drunk driving. I suppose your same arguments against government interference could be applied to that? After all, if you have a drivers license and your of legal age to drink, why should anyone not be allowed to operate your very own vehicle? I mean, any moron should know if they go out on the road they might meet up with someone who has had a few to many! Isn't that an assumed risk we all are willingly taking when we drive? It's a personal right and that is their problem if they got in your path when you crossed the median, no? If they have a problem with it they should just stay home!
IMO, if smokers were considerate and really cared about others and personal rights, they would naturally do the right thing and just step outside. But that is not the society we live in and that is why we need laws to make our world healthier. Business owners are in a tough position no doubt, I am certain that most would prefer a non smoking room, much cleaner and easier to keep that way. It purely the financial factor that prevents most from voluntarily choosing to create that environment, so when you argue it should be their choice, you know they really do not have that choice to alienate a large part of their clientele, even if the wanted too!
...and the funny thing about all this, after NYC went non smoking, a lot of my smoking friends, admitted they preferred it as well! It makes for a much more pleasant environment for everyone!
I mean how many of you hardcore smokers that own your homes smoke in them? If you do...you can knock 20,000 to 50,000 off the resale value and that goes for your cars too! And if you don't, then I have to wonder why you think it is okay to subject others to something you would not subject you own couch too?
Last edited:
Not quite sure why some people think that a "business" is entitled to the same freedoms and rights that you as an individual are entitled to under our constitution.
When you open a business and get a license to run that business you are agreeing to run that business within the guidelines and laws set forth in the area you choose to run that business. THese rules and laws are inevitably being put there by the people. Whether it be by vote of your city council alone, which were elected by the people or your actual vote at a booth on a referendum.
No rights are being "violated" because your not being told you cannot do something your just being told you cannot do it "in that licensed place of business" that has agreed to abide by these rules in order to run their business.
I know there are some areas that tried to pass laws that struck down smoking in public areas, such as a park or just walking down the street and the couple I remember were inevitably struck down. That I agree with, those should be struck down because your in a public area and are doing something that is not illegal and there shouldn't be a law restricting that activity.
People are always more than happy to scream "Freedom of whatever" to win an argument but in this case it just simply doesn't apply.
As a busienss owner you have the right to fight these laws to get them changed. You have the right to move your business to another place without these laws if you so choose.
Blurring the line between business and personal "rights" and "freedoms" may be beneficial to your causes argument but it simply just doesn't apply.
When you open a business and get a license to run that business you are agreeing to run that business within the guidelines and laws set forth in the area you choose to run that business. THese rules and laws are inevitably being put there by the people. Whether it be by vote of your city council alone, which were elected by the people or your actual vote at a booth on a referendum.
No rights are being "violated" because your not being told you cannot do something your just being told you cannot do it "in that licensed place of business" that has agreed to abide by these rules in order to run their business.
I know there are some areas that tried to pass laws that struck down smoking in public areas, such as a park or just walking down the street and the couple I remember were inevitably struck down. That I agree with, those should be struck down because your in a public area and are doing something that is not illegal and there shouldn't be a law restricting that activity.
People are always more than happy to scream "Freedom of whatever" to win an argument but in this case it just simply doesn't apply.
As a busienss owner you have the right to fight these laws to get them changed. You have the right to move your business to another place without these laws if you so choose.
Blurring the line between business and personal "rights" and "freedoms" may be beneficial to your causes argument but it simply just doesn't apply.
cuechick said:
Many non-smokers with principles abhor this policy to ban smoking in private premises.
You just don't understand the points which are being argued.
Here is an article, by a non-smoker that clearly points out the argument and how rights work....or should work.
http://www.mises.org/story/1244
Colin
btw: To jsp, good to have another libertarian(ish) convert
I just read that article and it didn't really do much in the way of explaining how rights work at all. It's another example of someone blurring the line of business owners rights for their business and the rights of a person under our constitution.
He conveniently blurs the line of a "property" owner and a "business" owner in order to try to prove some point that still remains unproven at the conclusion of the article.
As a "property" owner, you are completely entitled to smoke. I own a home and the property it sits upon. I can smoke there all I want if I so choose.
As a business owner, I went down to the city office and applied for a license and signed a document and I agreed to abide by the rules to run that business. One of those rules may be that I will not allow smoking in my place of business.
If my business is attached to my home and I close down my business I can now walk into that room and smoke, on my property and no one has anything to say about it. It was a shameless attempt for the author of that article to swing home owners over to his side of the argument by putting fear into them that their property rights are being violated.
He uses sensationalist arguments such as "the sun causing cancer" to try to prove his point. Another tell tale sign of someone who is out on a limb backing their opinion. Much like using the term many and then insulting someone by telling them they have no principles and don't understand when they don't agree.
We understand the arguments and rights, we just don't agree with your interpretation of them, just as slews of judges have not as well considering the bans have stood up to scrutiny and court case after court case.
A business is not a person and every business owner agrees to follow the laws of their government when they open that business and the simple fact that you can walk out that door and smoke is proof that your personal rights are not being violated at all. THe business just has a set of rules it must follow, no different than saying a business has to follow fire codes, etc.
Perhaps it's time we invoke Godwins law and kill this thread, so who wants to talk about nazi's?
He conveniently blurs the line of a "property" owner and a "business" owner in order to try to prove some point that still remains unproven at the conclusion of the article.
As a "property" owner, you are completely entitled to smoke. I own a home and the property it sits upon. I can smoke there all I want if I so choose.
As a business owner, I went down to the city office and applied for a license and signed a document and I agreed to abide by the rules to run that business. One of those rules may be that I will not allow smoking in my place of business.
If my business is attached to my home and I close down my business I can now walk into that room and smoke, on my property and no one has anything to say about it. It was a shameless attempt for the author of that article to swing home owners over to his side of the argument by putting fear into them that their property rights are being violated.
He uses sensationalist arguments such as "the sun causing cancer" to try to prove his point. Another tell tale sign of someone who is out on a limb backing their opinion. Much like using the term many and then insulting someone by telling them they have no principles and don't understand when they don't agree.
We understand the arguments and rights, we just don't agree with your interpretation of them, just as slews of judges have not as well considering the bans have stood up to scrutiny and court case after court case.
A business is not a person and every business owner agrees to follow the laws of their government when they open that business and the simple fact that you can walk out that door and smoke is proof that your personal rights are not being violated at all. THe business just has a set of rules it must follow, no different than saying a business has to follow fire codes, etc.
Perhaps it's time we invoke Godwins law and kill this thread, so who wants to talk about nazi's?
Well a business is just a collection of individuals conducting voluntary exchange.GTeye said:
I think your reasoning is a little circular, in that, government requires a business to be regulated via a license agreement, hence they have the right to add further regulations.
Sure governments can (has the power to) institute regulations, issue rights etc, but that doesn't mean that such regulations are just or intelligent.
There is also a great deal of legislation targeted directly at individuals that are not in agreement with the constitution. Gun control laws and income tax come directly to mind.
Those who believe that 'the government that governs least, governs best' naturally feel a responsibility to resist the encroaching nanny state.
Colin
SMOKEFREE.net for end of smoking!!
The facts are in, the poisoning will be stopped, it has in over 14 country's note: not towns, states but country's. All the info you want about your state legislation and pending laws,are available for your enlightenment.
It's marching along rapidly ,Philly and Pitts banned , this will move their politicians to support legislation statewide, to level the field of economic competition. PS Ireland has a ban.
Business want it as long as it's all , Health insurance costs, (smokers will Pay more IE. life insurance , lost work productivity, fires, cleanup(butts) Etc., Q
uitting smoking is the most important thing you can do healthwise.
Ya 'we all will die but smoking may cause a shorter life or worse a lingerig suffering type like lung, throat, stroke, heart etc all of reduces your quality of life .
I think we should be allowed to have a refrendum on smoking in public places. Polls in PA. show 75% for ban. It will be here, Oh well!!
Do you want to end the poisonous air pollution then climb aboard.cuechick said:
The facts are in, the poisoning will be stopped, it has in over 14 country's note: not towns, states but country's. All the info you want about your state legislation and pending laws,are available for your enlightenment.
It's marching along rapidly ,Philly and Pitts banned , this will move their politicians to support legislation statewide, to level the field of economic competition. PS Ireland has a ban.
Business want it as long as it's all , Health insurance costs, (smokers will Pay more IE. life insurance , lost work productivity, fires, cleanup(butts) Etc., Q
uitting smoking is the most important thing you can do healthwise.
Ya 'we all will die but smoking may cause a shorter life or worse a lingerig suffering type like lung, throat, stroke, heart etc all of
reduces your quality of life . I think we should be allowed to have a refrendum on smoking in public places. Polls in PA. show 75% for ban. It will be here, Oh well!!
GTeye,GTeye said:
I must admit, than in the thousands of articles I've read that discuss arguments pro and con myriad regulations, I've never before come across anyone who has raised your particular defense.
I've gotta give you some points for original thinking
Now, let me put forth a sceario for you to consider....
Say you do your deal with local council and then set up a pizza store. 10 years later you're doing ok, having invested a lot of time and effort building up your business methods and the brand.
Then some health gurus take control of the local council and institute a new law (without your consent) to limit pizza purchases to 1 piece per person per day, or perhaps to ban them altogether. They may even decide to make your business a one-way road so as to reduce traffic flow.
These new regulations would put you out of business, but, unlike in a normal contract, where both parties must agree to a change in the rules, in this case, the news conditions of the contract are forced upon you.
Would you feel the turn of events to be unfair? That the legislation is foolish?
Yet, the council would be within their rights to do this.
It's our job to try to prevent them from enacting foolish regulations. Be them for businesses or in our own homes.
Colin
I haven't read all of his thread because it is so huge. However, in the parts I did read no one mentioned what I consider to be the biggest benefit of a smoke free room. In a smoke free room the equipment conditions are infinitely better in my view. I have spent considerable time in a room located in an area that banned smoking and the tables stayed in great condition with only a small amount of maintenance. In contrast, many rooms where smoking is heavy, even common and energetic maintence can not keep up with the dirt, tar, grime, etc. that is incident to smoking.
So those of you who are equipment whores (you know who you are and I am included) then there is at least one good thing about a smoke free room.
kollegedave
So those of you who are equipment whores (you know who you are and I am included) then there is at least one good thing about a smoke free room.
kollegedave
And?
Those individuals are free to walk outside and smoke any time they wish, what in the world does that have to do with the business owners responsibilities regarding running his business? No one is saying someone can't do something they are saying they can't do it in this place of business who agreed to follow the local laws for running a business.
Shall we argue next why we cannot bring our 3 dalmations to the local diner when we have dinner?
That is very true and those laws that are violating my rights under the constitution most certainly should be struck down and I totally 100% would back fighting those laws.
As I said, Any law that banned smoking in a place like a park, city streets, etc while cigarettes are stilll legal I would completely disagree with and willingly sign a petition to have that struck down.
Of course they have the right to add regulations and they have the right to take away ones as well. That's how government works and if enough people truly disagree then they will elect enough new officials to have that rule changed but that has nothing to do with it violating anyones constitutional freedoms and rights. Business regulations and "governing" are completely different things. The same as a business itself and a citizen are completely different.
These are extremist examples and things that logically will not happen so to argue their possibility
just to give credit to your scenario is something I will not take part in.
Yes, I totally agree that it is our job to fight for what we believe in and do our best to make sure that
"silly" and "unreasonable" regulations are not placed upon people and yes, even businesses. However I do not
personally feel that a smoking ban fits those guidelines in the least bit.
(Edited this to address your other post so the thread wouldn't add another page)
Last edited:
unfortunately Montana is going "smoke free" in '07
personally i say ban it everywhere, hell ban cigarettes.
as far as i'm concerned, time breeds moral apathy (yes i composed that great line!).
the only reason we don't see smoking the same as snorting a line of cocaine or even punching somebody in the street, is because we've got used to being around it for such a long time. that doesn't make it right. you cant justify everything with the 'personal choice' argument i believe, there's got to be a set of rules for soiciety that work for the good of it. smoking in not one single way at all brings any good to society.
as far as i'm concerned, time breeds moral apathy (yes i composed that great line!).
the only reason we don't see smoking the same as snorting a line of cocaine or even punching somebody in the street, is because we've got used to being around it for such a long time. that doesn't make it right. you cant justify everything with the 'personal choice' argument i believe, there's got to be a set of rules for soiciety that work for the good of it. smoking in not one single way at all brings any good to society.
Cuechick,fish on said:Do you want to end the poisonous air pollution then climb aboard.
The facts are in, the poisoning will be stopped, it has in over 14 country's note: not towns, states but country's. All the info you want about your state legislation and pending laws,are available for your enlightenment.
It's marching along rapidly ,Philly and Pitts banned , this will move their politicians to support legislation statewide, to level the field of economic competition. PS Ireland has a ban.
Business want it as long as it's all , Health insurance costs, (smokers will Pay more IE. life insurance , lost work productivity, fires, cleanup(butts) Etc., Q
uitting smoking is the most important thing you can do healthwise.
Ya 'we all will die but smoking may cause a shorter life or worse a lingerig suffering type like lung, throat, stroke, heart etc all of
I think we should be allowed to have a refrendum on smoking in public places. Polls in PA. show 75% for ban. It will be here, Oh well!!
Why not just ban smoking then?
Then we could ban drinking, eating high fat foods, driving, make daily exercise compulsory etc etc.
Using polls doesn't prove anything is just. Democracy is simply a tyranny of the minority by the majority. btw. Your founding fathers abhored democracy, instead forming a constitutional republic, wherein even 99.99% of the people cannot usurp the constitutional rights of one person.
Smoking as a contributer to air pollution in the world is all but insignificant.
Of course, within certain confined places, smoke pollution is very significant and displeasing to many. Hence there is an incentive for many places to not allow smoking on their premises.
I would not assume the right to smoke in places where the owners requested I did not. Nor would I assume the right to use force against any property owner to make them ban smoking.
This is an issue of property rights. Not smoking rights.
Property rights are the foundation of a free and wealthy society. Believe it or not. Something that the people are voting away step by step trying to get what they want.
For the entertainment of some here, I'll provide a quote from the infamous and brilliant H.L. Mencken "Democracy is the view that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
Colin