38 States Now Have Smoking Bans
MICHIGAN DAILY -- Governor Jennifer Granholm signed a bill that prohibits smoking in public areas statewide into law today, making Michigan the 38th state to enact such legislation.
MP: Of course, the article doesn't mention the 12 states without a smoking ban, and here's an example below of why I love Wikipedia, it took 30 seconds to find this. Also, Wikipedia was updated today to reflect the change in Michigan law that was enacted only yesterday.
WIKIPEDIA -- As of December 2009, 12 states have not enacted any general statewide ban on smoking in any non-government owned spaces: Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
20 Comments:
Texas is looking better and better ... if only I could get rid of the condo in this market ....
A smoking ban that is smoking out small business across the nation...
Just how smart is that?
Cafe business up in smoke
Friday, December 20, 2002 10:04 AM EST
The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act, (smoking ban), and its effect on Billy’s Inn
ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES
Governor Jennifer Granholm, with her signed legislation, cuts tobacco use which cuts tobacco tax revenue for the state of Michigan.
Michigan is beyond broke. Atta Girl Jennifer!
The issue of a smokeing ban is whose rights are violated the smoker or the non smoker. Since it has been demonstrated that the non smoker is harmed by smoking (second hand smoke), it follows from the my rights stop at the end of your nose principle that smoking bans make sense. Libertarian principles do not include harming your neighbor directly so you can exercise your rights. Since employees can not escape the smoking section, the total ban makes sense. If you want to say that you have the right to harm me, then its not libertarian, its me firstism, and I don't care if I harm you.
Now in Tx many cities have the smokeing ban, Houston among them.
How many people are killed by second hand alcohol in drunk driving accidents.
Second hand fat puts enormous strain on the medical system via diabetes, heart disease, joint replacements, obesity and other ailments.
So why not ban alcohol?
Why should I have to pay higher auto insurance premiums to pay for drunk drivers?
Why not ban fat foods, ice cream, and McDonalds.
Why should I have to pay higher medical insurance premiums to cover the medical costs of your lazy, gluttoness, fat ass.
The claim that second hand smoke is killing 50,000 folks a year is junk science. Not that it can't be harmful -- but you'd have to be locked up in a car with a smoker 24/7 to have a noticeable effect.
Smoking definitely can kill you, but the science underlying it is of the "global warming" type -- only worse. For instance, in one study of wide acceptance, if a person smokes and dies of a heart attack, that is attributed to them smoking. That's how the smoke banners get to the 400,000 death a year figure.
And no, I don't smoke -- filthy habit, as I see it. But not one that needs to be banned on private property, or outside in public places.
So while imperial politicians save the world from second hand smoke, democrats in Washington condemn DC school children to a life of poverty on the public education plantation.
Not to be out done, democratic politicians in Michigan, who have been running the Detroit public schools and the Michigan Education Association for decades, condemn Detroit school children to the worst public schools in the country.
They may be obese and ignorant, but by golly they won't be exposed to second hand smoke.
Smoking bans violate neither the rights of smokers, nor non-smokers.
Smoking bans violate the rights of property owners.
We are in big trouble.
Anonymous 6:46 am, well said.
This ban constitutes an uncompensated taking.
We are, indeed, in trouble.
"Since it has been demonstrated that the non smoker is harmed by smoking (second hand smoke)"...
Name ONE person where it was proven that he or she died of the effects of second hand smoke lyle...
"Now in Tx many cities have the smokeing ban, Houston among them"...
Sooner or later the citizens in these Texas cities will come to their collective senses and vote the socialist TARDS out of office and save some money in the process of dumping them...
Lyle said: "...Since it has been demonstrated that the non smoker is harmed by smoking (second hand smoke)..."
Really? Who demonstrated such? The only proven deleterious effects of second hand smoke are allergic: some people (such as myself) get hay fever-like symptoms due to cigarette smoke, and some people with asthma react badly to any kind of smoke. But, for most people, second-hand smoke isn't a health problem. Some of the bans include smoking outdoors where second-hand smoke is not a problem at all. The nanny states aren't trying to protect nonsmokers, they are trying to make it difficult to be a smoker.
I'm a pathologist who certainly knows the adverse effects of smoking, but I'm also a libertarian who believes that people should be free to make decisions about their lives and health.
Employers always have had the ability to ban smoking in the workplace, but now these state governments have banned smoking even in workplaces (such as restaurants and bars) that allowed smoking by employees and customers. People who dislike cigarette smoke always were free to not work or be a customer of such places.
These smoking bans have been disastrous for restaurants, bars, and night clubs. The bans also hurt productivity in other workplaces because there are no smoking lounges: smokers have to go outside and sometimes have to go off the property to smoke. That doubles or triples their break times and lowers their productivity.
Once again the harm on non harm of second hand smoke depends upon whom you believe. The National Cancer Institute, a branch of the NIH says on its website that second hand smoke is a hazard.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
The Surgeon General also says this. Now if you want 100% certianty, you wont ever have it, but this is pretty good. Having had in the past to share an office with a guy who smoked like a steam engine I am glad it is banned in work areas. (Back then it was assumed you could inflict your smoke on others, now the sign has changed, so the issue is that its now the rights stop at the end of the smokers nose rather than the end of the non smokers nose.
Any employer who did not ban smoking would find themselves in court rapidly on the grounds of running an unsafe workplace.
After a transition period the business will adapt, one should note that an aweful lot of cafes are marginal at best, and someone will pick up and try again.
I doubt that Houston will undo the ban, since it started with smoking sections and then moved to total smoking bans.
Note that since we have employer provided health care, the employers interest is to make it as hard as possible for their employees to smoke, nudging them to quit.
A second note Dallas banned smoking in bars and pool halls in April 2009. In Dallas smoking is still allowed on outside patio areas, but not indoors. San Antonio allows smoking where there are no signs prohibiting it, but there is a strong push to make it illegal there.
"The National Cancer Institute, a branch of the NIH says on its website that second hand smoke is a hazard"...
"The Surgeon General also says this"...
Well lyle I find it rather humerous that you are quoting groups of people leeching off the taxpayer, yes people without real jobs...
Then again that's socialism for you, long on whine and short on substance...
"Any employer who did not ban smoking would find themselves in court rapidly on the grounds of running an unsafe workplace"...
A Stalinist move that would even awe Stalin...
Rules based on lies and fraud sort of reminds me of the present health care bill the party of the SEDITIOUS & SLEAZY is trying foist off onto citizens who don't want it...
Well lyle I find it rather humerous that you are quoting groups of people leeching off the taxpayer, yes people without real jobs...
juandos,
I am going to find you and smoke my entire Cuban (that I've been saving for a special occasion) directly into your face.
Actually, this smoking issue brings up another example of where free markets fail.
It's called the tragedy of the commons. It's hard to privatize air so what would a juandos do about businesses who spew toxins into the air.
Since, it is apparently socialism to give funds to group to study the effect of toxins, there would never be any private incentive to do this. And even if there was, it would be socialism to tell a business that they can't spew toxins into the air in juandos world.
I once saw an interview with Ron Paul about the environment where someone asked Paul about that very question. And his response was most enlightening. He basically said that there is no need for an EPA or the Clean Air Act. He said that basically if someone felt that their air was being polluted that someone can bring forth a lawsuit against the polluter.
So, essentially the courts will systematically decide which toxins are pollutants and which are not. Sounds like a very practical and pragmatic solution. Oh, and I am not sure if Dr. Paul forgot about this, but the courts are the government. And if the thinks the governments operates so horrible, what makes him think that the courts would operate any differently.
Anyway, I really want to see what is juandos solution to air and water pollution. Is there a solution?
texas! hey, can you still legally drive around in texas with an open beer in your hand? ya gotta love that state
Bobble Texas passed an open container law in 2001 so that it is no longer legal to drive with an open container.
The issue of a smokeing ban is whose rights are violated the smoker or the non smoker. Since it has been demonstrated that the non smoker is harmed by smoking (second hand smoke), it follows from the my rights stop at the end of your nose principle that smoking bans make sense. Libertarian principles do not include harming your neighbor directly so you can exercise your rights. Since employees can not escape the smoking section, the total ban makes sense. If you want to say that you have the right to harm me, then its not libertarian, its me firstism, and I don't care if I harm you.
Lyle, the actual rights at issue here are those of property owners. You may agree or disagree that those rights deserve protection in this instance -- feel free to make a public accommodations argument -- but don't misstate the relevant context out of the gate.
You haven't presented a libertarian case for this law. You've presented a leftist case.
This is not about smokers' rights versus nonsmokers' rights. It's about property rights versus government power.
This has already been pointed out to you, so I'm not sure why you just steamrolled past it.
I am a nonsmoker and so is my husband.
Colorado smoking ban actually improved for some bars and restaurants. Of course the press only reports on the businesses that are hurt by the smoking ban. Fortuntatly one of the local news reported it was helping businesses.
My husband and I would walk out of a restaurants if the smoke was bad. Let me tell you that even restaurants that had non-smoking and smoking sections the smoke was horrible. We were not the only customers doing this either.
West Virginia is enacting smoking bans... they have been adding them by county.
The county I am in has banned smoking in restaurants, but are going after the bars and adult arcades now. Adult video arcades usually are only allowed 5 video game machines per establishment, and under 21 not allowed in... currently there are smoking and nonsmoking and alcohol and non alcohol types... seems like the owners could decide if they wish to be smoke-free or not, as restaurant owners should have been allowed the same choice. Why should the health dept tell someone paying taxes what he can or cant do with his business? Employess also have the right to leave if the smoke bothers them, there are other smokefree jobs out there!
Post a Comment
<< Home