Smoking ban in Houston.

[Colin Colenso]

This is a great debate. Both sides have good points. Ultimately I don't think the government should have this kind of power, but a part of me says that too much is known about the negative effects of smoking to allow it in a public place.

Real public places, such as parks, roads etc. are a bit of a dilemma concerning rights. This is the age old problem of the commons.

That's why most libertarians would prefer to see all these things privately owned *gasps from the gallery*.

But we consider a bar or club to be privately owned property, just like one's home. Visitors to such establishments as voluntary entrants with an obligation to conduct themselves as the property owner requires.

Ownership of air, rivers and oceans is a tricky intellectual subject, but it is solvable. Unfortunately, I believe the growing network of regulations over private properties and so called public goods is taking us in the wrong direction.

One critical aspect I feel is the fight to prevent such legislation from entering at the federal level. I would even accept various cities voting to allow the majority to run things as they see fit, and the smokers or business owners who don't like it can go settle in another city and run things moreso as they please.

At least then we'd have competition in government and we'd see which cities were more happy, healthy and prosperous. (My bet is that the regions which defended property rights would be the most successful). But take things to a federal level and no comparisons can be drawn, except a lot of speculation and selective evidence from both sides of the fence, as we have here.

Colin

 

[FLICKit]

The real test of a principle is not whether you make a stand to use it to justify a selfish action, but instead to want to uphold the principle even in a case that works against your own selfish issues. Otherwise, this blurs the distinction between principle and selfishness. When you try to apply that "principle" to your personal desire to smoke and engage in an act which is objected to and inflicted upon a noticeable number of others around you (a majority of people/voters in this case), then the point you're trying to make is obviously distorted. The case for the principle that you are trying to assert is significantly weakened. Hence, that's one of the reasons you're currently receiving so many contrary point of views to your own. Obviously, you'll want to resort back to saying that you only want to allow the business owner to make the decision, but this is clearly because it'll serve your selfish interests to smoke irregardless of the effects of the people around you.

But we consider a bar or club to be privately owned property, just like one's home. Visitors to such establishments as voluntary entrants with an obligation to conduct themselves as the property owner requires.

You are conveniently ignoring the actual designation and distinction between a home environment and a business environment with all of its commercial regulations associated with it. For example, in most cities you can't just take your house and convert it into any commercial business of your choosing, without following proper zoning regulations. Also, there are commercial regulations against barring admittance to a public business establishment without just cause, whereas in your house you are much more free to deny admittance. There are also regulations governing the types of activities that can be engaged in a public establishment (not to be confused with parks or government buildings, but instead any business establishment even if privately owned that is open to the public).

Thus, to more accurately make your statement, "Visitors to such establishments as voluntary entrants with an obligation to conduct themselves as the property owner requires" and commercial regulations permit.

I justify smoking in some places on the account that 1. I don't believe I am putting people at any significant risk. and 2. That it is their choice to frequent that place.

Whether "you believe you are putting people at any significant risk", respectfully stated, is irrelevant and conveniently reflexive of your selfish desire on this smoking issue. The health effects issue doesn't have to be proven to an absolutely certainty to you and all the others who will most likely suffer the negative consequences from direct exposure, which your response seems to indirectly imply, whether intended or not. The common sense opinion amongst medical experts and accepted by the populous is that smoking has dangerous direct and indirect health effects. You can argue your own personal opinion on this matter as much as you want. Makes no difference. Thus, whether you or anyone else's smoking puts people at risk in a bar will be dictated by the will of the people and the majority vote. That will be an example of democracy in action as the constitutional forefathers intended for government to be governed by the people. Whether you as a lone individual believe it should be, or I believe that it shouldn't be, will be irrelevant, whereas this will be decided by the people/voters.

I do not insist on having a right to smoke where it is not permitted, and I avoid polluting the air around people who are bothered by it. Clearly some smokers are rude and those who fight for rights to smoke whereever they please are totally wrong in my book.

In which case, your courteous smoking habits shall be acknowledged and commended. On the other hand as well, just note that even courteous smoking habits in an enclosed environment can in no way guarantee that there won't be any unintended health consequences or effects to others around you. Clearly though, intentional courteousness is much more desired than the consequences from the discourteous or even the apathetic.

This is just a matter of analyzing the two points of view.
1. Your desire to smoke in a bar/restaraunt or place of your choosing.
2. Others desire to be in a bar/restaraunt without being inflicted by 2nd hand smoke and all of its potentially negative consequences (health, annoyance, and other nastiness), when one simple solution that allows both to co-exist without injury would be to have designated areas (inside and outside) in which you can engage in your personal habit to whatever degree you choose.

This issue in no way is about banning your ability to smoke (ironically the proposed intiative is a bit of a misnomer, since it's not banning smoking in all areas in Houston) or the owner's ability to allow you to smoke. This is about democracy being used to establish guidelines for areas offlimit to a nuisance/unhealthy activity namely smoking (similar to no-fly zone regulations for public safety, or noise and nuisance regulations enforced for neighborhood comfort).

You clearly are expressing a strong desire to not have to stand up and walk (before and after) a reasonably short distance in order to engage in your self indulgent pleasure of smoking. It's a little inconvenient.

Does the desire to smoke lose its luster if you have to go to a designated area? When given a choice between being a little inconvencied at a non-smoking establishment or not smoking which would you choose (without bypassing the question and options given to you)?

 

[cuechick]

I agree with Flick (great post!), you are conveniently choosing not to believe your smoking dose not put others at risk. There is more than enough proven evidence that you are wrong. I know from my own body you are wrong. The day after I play at Cues II, the smokiest room of the three that I play out of, I get headaches and if the smoke is really bad, completely congested.

And as far as choosing to be there...do I really have a choice? I am a pool player! My only "choices" here are to play pool or not play pool and not playing pool is not an option for me! I avoid Cues as much as possible, I only play in tournaments there, but they are one of the most active rooms in my area for tournaments.

I really wonder if the activity you were most passionate about was practiced in a place that made you ill, how you would feel?
Well, you may know at some point, cause chances are, this "right" you are so passionate about will kill you one day.

 

[chefjeff]

This blog goes into detail regarding the false claims of the anti-smoking groups: This guy is actually an honest anti-smoking activist and scientist who is blowing the whistle on the continual false claims of anti-smoking groups.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

This website also provides a ton of similar information:
http://www.forces.org/

None of this matters to the concept of rights. You've lost the argument, Colin, cuz you let them bypass the property rights concept.

I've got a great idea....

For those control-freaks who think they can just casually hire men with guns to FORCE pool hall owners to do as the control-freaks demand, why don't you, instead, just go buy a pool hall and make it non-smoking?

That way, no rights are violated, no force is required, and you and yours will be happy. Then the rest of us can live in peace without being subjected to your violent ways.

That way, everyone can be happy. Sense?

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

This is where I disagree with you the most, it is not a property rights issue, it is a public safety issue. (snip)
(snip)

Ooo, don't say that, as you are giving up YOUR right to control YOUR property, i.e. your body.

You, too, like Colin, have just lost the argument. You did it by advocating that others should use force to control your body. Now, maybe you like the type of control right now, but your argument, above, disallows you to use, without contradiction, the powerful property rights defense for other issues. That is, you can no longer claim ownernship of you. That's a dangerous thing to give away for little or no gain. Edit: Much more dangerous and deadly than smoke.

Jeff Livingston

 

[jsp]

...And as far as choosing to be there...do I really have a choice? I am a pool player! My only "choices" here are to play pool or not play pool and not playing pool is not an option for me! I avoid Cues as much as possible, I only play in tournaments there, but they are one of the most active rooms in my area for tournaments.

I really wonder if the activity you were most passionate about was practiced in a place that made you ill, how you would feel?
Well, you may know at some point, cause chances are, this "right" you are so passionate about will kill you one day.

You say that not playing pool is "not an option" for you. Of course you're not being literal about what you said, because no one is forcing you to play pool.

Let's provide a parallel example. Suppose that I come down with a strange ear disease, such that it would be "harmful" for me to listen to loud music. The only pool hall that I go has the jukebox on loud all the time (because the majority of the customers like it on). It would be hazardous for me to play in that hall.

Do I not have an option to play pool? Do you think it would be fair and proper to pass a law to ban loud music in all pool halls, restaurants...etc?

How is this situation different than the smoking scenario?

 

[jsp]

None of this matters to the concept of rights. You've lost the argument, Colin, cuz you let them bypass the property rights concept...

LOL, chefjeff would you still label Colin as "libertarian" in your eyes?

Colin, how do you feel the right for everyone to carry guns on planes and the free trade of nuclear weapons?

 

[chefjeff]

LOL, chefjeff would you still label Colin as "libertarian" in your eyes?

(snip)

Yes. And brilliant.

He just fell into the old trap of defending the value-of-the-issue of liberty, vs. liberty per se. Iow, he must now defend an "A" point, vs. "The" point. And that "A" point (second hand smoke) might be objective as to its (non)harm, but it is definitely subjective as to its value.

For example, I could have honestly said that I haven't smoked since 1/1/75 and absolutely hate second-hand smoke, but that would only take away the emphasis from the property rights issue, which is THE point of how much government is necessary to protect me from thee and thee from me.

Another example (I think...you tell me) Would you have come this far in your thinking about liberty if I hadn't harped on the right to protect oneself when traveling (guns on planes)? Or if I hadn't use nuke ownership as an example of self-ownership vis-a-vis property rights, would you have even considered the right of the pool hall owner to allow patrons to smoke or not? Another example from my postings: I most often use the drug war as the best example of the benefits of liberty even though many drugs can kill when abused. Why? Again, it is NOT the drugs that are the issue; it is liberty, even though liberty means the ability to make mistakes and fail. By using example that offend others, THE point stands out and therefore holds MORE value in the argument.

Jeff Livingston

 

[MrLucky]

Great Post with good rationale!!!!

The real test of a principle is not whether you make a stand to use it to justify a selfish action, but instead to want to uphold the principle even in a case that works against your own selfish issues. Otherwise, this blurs the distinction between principle and selfishness. When you try to apply that "principle" to your personal desire to smoke and engage in an act which is objected to and inflicted upon a noticeable number of others around you (a majority of people/voters in this case), then the point you're trying to make is obviously distorted. The case for the principle that you are trying to assert is significantly weakened. Hence, that's one of the reasons you're currently receiving so many contrary point of views to your own. Obviously, you'll want to resort back to saying that you only want to allow the business owner to make the decision, but this is clearly because it'll serve your selfish interests to smoke irregardless of the effects of the people around you.


You are conveniently ignoring the actual designation and distinction between a home environment and a business environment with all of its commercial regulations associated with it. For example, in most cities you can't just take your house and convert it into any commercial business of your choosing, without following proper zoning regulations. Also, there are commercial regulations against barring admittance to a public business establishment without just cause, whereas in your house you are much more free to deny admittance. There are also regulations governing the types of activities that can be engaged in a public establishment (not to be confused with parks or government buildings, but instead any business establishment even if privately owned that is open to the public).

Thus, to more accurately make your statement, "Visitors to such establishments as voluntary entrants with an obligation to conduct themselves as the property owner requires" and commercial regulations permit.


Whether "you believe you are putting people at any significant risk", respectfully stated, is irrelevant and conveniently reflexive of your selfish desire on this smoking issue. The health effects issue doesn't have to be proven to an absolutely certainty to you and all the others who will most likely suffer the negative consequences from direct exposure, which your response seems to indirectly imply, whether intended or not. The common sense opinion amongst medical experts and accepted by the populous is that smoking has dangerous direct and indirect health effects. You can argue your own personal opinion on this matter as much as you want. Makes no difference. Thus, whether you or anyone else's smoking puts people at risk in a bar will be dictated by the will of the people and the majority vote. That will be an example of democracy in action as the constitutional forefathers intended for government to be governed by the people. Whether you as a lone individual believe it should be, or I believe that it shouldn't be, will be irrelevant, whereas this will be decided by the people/voters.


In which case, your courteous smoking habits shall be acknowledged and commended. On the other hand as well, just note that even courteous smoking habits in an enclosed environment can in no way guarantee that there won't be any unintended health consequences or effects to others around you. Clearly though, intentional courteousness is much more desired than the consequences from the discourteous or even the apathetic.

This is just a matter of analyzing the two points of view.
1. Your desire to smoke in a bar/restaraunt or place of your choosing.
2. Others desire to be in a bar/restaraunt without being inflicted by 2nd hand smoke and all of its potentially negative consequences (health, annoyance, and other nastiness), when one simple solution that allows both to co-exist without injury would be to have designated areas (inside and outside) in which you can engage in your personal habit to whatever degree you choose.

This issue in no way is about banning your ability to smoke (ironically the proposed intiative is a bit of a misnomer, since it's not banning smoking in all areas in Houston) or the owner's ability to allow you to smoke. This is about democracy being used to establish guidelines for areas offlimit to a nuisance/unhealthy activity namely smoking (similar to no-fly zone regulations for public safety, or noise and nuisance regulations enforced for neighborhood comfort).

You clearly are expressing a strong desire to not have to stand up and walk (before and after) a reasonably short distance in order to engage in your self indulgent pleasure of smoking. It's a little inconvenient.

Does the desire to smoke lose its luster if you have to go to a designated area? When given a choice between being a little inconvencied at a non-smoking establishment or not smoking which would you choose (without bypassing the question and options given to you)?

This legislation is now about to go into effect in Dekalb County Georgia and since I play pool in MR Cues there I can not wait for it to be passed ! They supposedly have a smoke eater there but it still is thick enough on league nights to irritate my eyes and nose! I worry about the effects on my lungs from my many years of playing pool in these environments ! I refuse to go to many clubs that I would otherwise enjoy because of the smoke and related health issues! I however have continued to play pool ! When peoples rights regarding health is concerned I believe everything else is irrelevant! and Health and welfare come first !

 

[RedGuru]

When government falls down the slippery slope of altruism, we have to curb it. No matter what the property is still that of the proprietor.

The employee has agreed to work for the employer in known working conditions. If the employee does not like those conditions he or she can terminate their employment and seek it elsewhere. The proprietor then has to seek out another employee who will work in the present conditions, increase the wage to get employees, or change the working conditions.

The non-smoker can open a competing establishment and offer an alternative service. With this law in Houston, a smoking establishment cannot be created to compete with all the non-smoking ones, creating the imbalance that Keynsian commerce always does.

 

[MrLucky]

This is Hilarious...

When government falls down the slippery slope of altruism, we have to curb it. No matter what the property is still that of the proprietor.

The employee has agreed to work for the employer in known working conditions. If the employee does not like those conditions he or she can terminate their employment and seek it elsewhere. The proprietor then has to seek out another employee who will work in the present conditions, increase the wage to get employees, or change the working conditions.

The non-smoker can open a competing establishment and offer an alternative service. With this law in Houston, a smoking establishment cannot be created to compete with all the non-smoking ones, creating the imbalance that Keynsian commerce always does.

What kind of analogy was that? an employee (to use your example) that is in or in what is found to be a hazardous situation! has and is still protected by the law !!!! if not coal miners would still be digging in mines with no mask and protective gears! Children would still be used in sweatshops!!! where did you get / come up with this drivel?

 

[RedGuru]

What kind of analogy was that? an employee (to use your example) that is in or in what is found to be a hazardous situation! has and is still protected by the law !!!! if not coal miners would still be digging in mines with no mask and protective gears! Children would still be used in sweatshops!!! where did you get / come up with this drivel?

You don't know that. In fact the workers in the coal mines drove those changes as Polish and Irish Miners struck to change wages and working conditions. It was the employees that initially drove those changes not the government. In fact the government acted to protect the Mine owners, which is just as bad as the other side of the coin.

The point is, that the free market system when left to its own devices will work out its problems on its own without intervention by the government. In some cases that will take a longer period of time but in others it is quicker acting.

 

[Colin Colenso]

None of this matters to the concept of rights. You've lost the argument, Colin, cuz you let them bypass the property rights concept.

I've got a great idea....

For those control-freaks who think they can just casually hire men with guns to FORCE pool hall owners to do as the control-freaks demand, why don't you, instead, just go buy a pool hall and make it non-smoking?

That way, no rights are violated, no force is required, and you and yours will be happy. Then the rest of us can live in peace without being subjected to your violent ways.

That way, everyone can be happy. Sense?

Jeff Livingston

Hi Jeff,
In the case of smoking, I believe the argument needs to go in this direction. At least for analysis sake.

Lets say that cigarette smoking was as toxic as Serin or some other highly dangerous gas.

There is an argument for the right to possess such a chemical based on property rights, but of course releasing such a gas, which would kill people would be murder, manslaughter or wreckless endangerment or some such crime.

Citizens worldwide have allowed government to prevent unlicensed owenership of such products.

The anti-smoking movement knows this and that is why they invest so much time heading down this path, trying to convince people that smoking and especially second hand smoke is much more dangerous than it actually is. They have a strong incentive to create dubious studies and to exagerate claims. Even to blatantly lie about conclusions of studies, which it is proven they do. High ups in the movement have even admitted this, but excuse it on the grounds that it is ok so long as they achieve their noble purpose.

Maybe you're right that the most effective fight is on the subject of rights. But I think the veracity of the claims of the anti-smoking lobby should also be questioned. The light needs to be shone on them as lacking integrity.

They, like Flickit are ideologically driven. Hence, they assume our arguments are only in our self interest.

But, simple proof against this is the fact that many thousands of libertarian intellectuals (most of whom don't smoke) are almost in full agreement and they make the exact same arguments we are making.

For me I would rather never have another smoke, than to use force to stop another human conducting their business of voluntary mutual exchange the way they see fit.

Colin

ps. Flickit claimed that it is right because it is democratic. Hence it is right when majorities slaughter minorities? The United States were NOT set up as a democracy. The founders knew much better. The constitution was formed such that inherent rights could not be usurped, by democratic voting or whatever. It says nothing about businesses being different from residences.

 

[Colin Colenso]

What kind of analogy was that? an employee (to use your example) that is in or in what is found to be a hazardous situation! has and is still protected by the law !!!! if not coal miners would still be digging in mines with no mask and protective gears! Children would still be used in sweatshops!!! where did you get / come up with this drivel?

Mr. Lucky,
I guess what we're asking you and others to believe, is that the history and economics that is taught in schools is basically a big basket of lies. So it's no wonder we're seen as whack jobs....we're used to it

There is a ton of evidence and writings that support our claims. The more one reads, the more one learns about the true history, how economics really works and why the mainstream acedemics are corrupt or simply misinformed parrots on most social, legal and economic issues.

There's no easy answer but to consider both sides of the arguments and to use reason to compare them. If you feel so compelled, I highly recommend the website www.mises.com as a starting place.

Colin

 

[ScottW]

The anti-smoking movement knows this and that is why they invest so much time heading down this path, trying to convince people that smoking and especially second hand smoke is much more dangerous than it actually is. They have a strong incentive to create dubious studies and to exagerate claims. Even to blatantly lie about conclusions of studies, which it is proven they do. High ups in the movement have even admitted this, but excuse it on the grounds that it is ok so long as they achieve their noble purpose.

Colin, tell that to my mom.

Oh wait. She's *dead*. From emphysema, thanks to smoking most of her prematurely-ended life.

That's the "dubious study" on the dangers of smoking that *I* go by.

 

[RedGuru]

Colin, tell that to my mom.

Oh wait. She's *dead*. From emphysema, thanks to smoking most of her prematurely-ended life.

That's the "dubious study" on the dangers of smoking that *I* go by.

My uncle died from emphysema but never smoked a day in his life, nor did his wife.

I don't smoke, I gave it up five years ago. I'm a physical fitness nut. But I don't believe to this day, that regulating personal habits or the property rights of a sole proprietor is within the purview of the government.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, tell that to my mom.

Oh wait. She's *dead*. From emphysema, thanks to smoking most of her prematurely-ended life.

That's the "dubious study" on the dangers of smoking that *I* go by.

Sorry to hear that Scott,
My grandfather also died of lung cancer, which I'm sure his constant smoking contributed to.

There's no doubt smoking thousands of cigarettes is going to create some adverse health reactions. Some worse than others, and depending on the person's genetic traits, medical conditions and other lifestyle traits.

eg. One might smoke 20 a day but run 5 miles a day and show few if any negative lung effects.

Many things contribute to the conditions of one's health. One thing alone is almost never fully repsonsible for any categorized ailment.

Smoking may cause a rise in blood pressure, or an increase in nicotine levels, but its direct link in terms of causality for cancers can not be described as such. One may say it contributes to, or is one of several possible causal factors, but not the cause.

What we need is accurate information about that, so we can accurately estimate our risks and make lifestyle or medical decisions accordingly.

btw: Entering a bar increases one's likelihood of death or injury from assault by drunken patrons. Should we then prohibit businesses from serving alcohol?

Colin

 

[MrLucky]

Sorry but...

Sorry to hear that Scott,
My grandfather also died of lung cancer, which I'm sure his constant smoking contributed to.

There's no doubt smoking thousands of cigarettes is going to create some adverse health reactions. Some worse than others, and depending on the person's genetic traits, medical conditions and other lifestyle traits.

eg. One might smoke 20 a day but run 5 miles a day and show few if any negative lung effects.

Many things contribute to the conditions of one's health. One thing alone is almost never fully repsonsible for any categorized ailment.

Smoking may cause a rise in blood pressure, or an increase in nicotine levels, but its direct link in terms of causality for cancers can not be described as such. One may say it contributes to, or is one of several possible causal factors, but not the cause.

What we need is accurate information about that, so we can accurately estimate our risks and make lifestyle or medical decisions accordingly.

btw: Entering a bar increases one's likelihood of death or injury from assault by drunken patrons. Should we then prohibit businesses from serving alcohol?

Colin

as a runner your analogy of "...eg. One might smoke 20 a day but run 5 miles a day and show few if any negative lung effects...." is really ridiculous I do not know any real runners that smoke 1 much less 20 cigarettes per day! these pastimes just do not go together! and I truly doubt you know anyone who smokes cigs and is a runner they are just opposites! This isn't even close to reality !

I also have lost my Aunt to smoking (Lung Cancer) even though she quit 10-11 years before it was diagnosed!

 

[catscradle]

as a runner your analogy of "...eg. One might smoke 20 a day but run 5 miles a day and show few if any negative lung effects...." is really ridiculous I do not know any real runners that smoke 1 much less 20 cigarettes per day! these pastimes just do not go together! and I truly doubt you know anyone who smokes cigs and is a runner they are just opposites! This isn't even close to reality !

I also have lost my Aunt to smoking (Lung Cancer) even though she quit 10-11 years before it was diagnosed!

I couldn't agree with you more, I started running 40 years ago because a little quit smoking pamphlet I picked up in the px said to engage in a behaviour incompatible with smoking. Running is very incompatible with smoking. In all my years of running and running road races I saw one person and only one person light up after a 10k. BTW, I'm still running, but haven't had another cigarette since.

 

[catscradle]

Licensing is only another form of taxation. Professional licensing should be attained through acceptance by peers like the AMA and the local Bar associations. A license to do business is only designed to fill the coffers of the local government.

I disagree, it is akin to zoning. It's theoretical purpose is to control where certain business open, to ensure adequate facilities (including parking), to protect neighborhoods, to throttle dispensing of certain goods, etc. with the goal of enhancing the public good. Whether or not it is used for that purpose is another question. Pragmatically I think it is used for that purpose, but governments also take advantage to enhance revenues.