To Smoke or Not to Smoke
It is funny how you think you know people. I was in a bar the other night with a few friends, and we observed that people were smoking in the bar. One of my fellow patrons noted that it was nice in states that had banned smoking in bars. Of course, I quickly objected. Unfortunately, the table turned against me. 
Apart from the fact that I was shocked that my friend, the initiator of the conversation, was the first to say that these laws were good, because I thought that she was one of the “enlightened” few, who understood individual freedom. Sadly, I was wrong, and suddenly I was to stunned at her arguing with me that I was unable to gather the thought to argue with her. So, why not blog about the subject.
First, let me say, looking on the brighter side, that at least this is being done on a state level and not on a national level. It is true that in the states that have passed these bans the overwhelming majority have been in favor, seen either in public opinion polls or through the referendums that lead to the bans. It is also true that it does improve the atmosphere of the bar in that one does not smell like smoke upon having spent anytime within. Again, there is some utility for those who are forced to work in these atmospheres, being exposed to second hand smoke risks that they would not have otherwise been subjected to.
HOWEVER, none of these arguments are really convincing once we take a deeper look into the matter. Despite the fact that this is being done on a state level, it is still government interference to the highest degree. Apart from making decisions for the individual, the government is forcing private businesses to conform to their views that someone else has decided is the correct view. It is another example of a third party butting its way into what should be a mutually satisfying two party transaction. The dictates of the third party are making the transaction less agreeable or even completely disagreeable for some members of the transaction that was previously two party. Either the smoker losses a 
place to patron, or the bar owner losses his customers. Somebody now loses. A private business can always decide to make his bar or restaurant non-smoking. It is his property, his business, he can that decision. I have no problem with that. After all, I could either go elsewhere, or, should I really like the bar, i could suck it up and not smoke. That decision is up to the owner, not the general public.
As for the more democratic aspects of these bans, might does not make right. Simply because a majority of people believe something is correct, does not make it so. Insert any number of historical datum here. But, this leads us into a larger tangent, (one perhaps better served in a post all of its own) but we shall touch upon it here. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Democracy is a tyranny of the masses, in which 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%.” Until people truly understand Ayn Rand’s maxim “Government is the enemy of the people” the above quote will make no sense. In fact, to some extent, even continuing to discuss this topic is senseless in that most people dismiss these thoughts and ideas out of hand.
Atmosphere, ambiance, etc. are at best matters of opinion. Trying to enforce these roles on others is like trying to enforce a national flavor of ice cream. In reality, this little more than elitism. People imposing their “higher and better” values and opinions on the “less well-informed” general masses. It is truly ridiculous, and deserves less attention than it has already been given.
The last concern I mentioned is probably the most cogent argument. But, is there really a place in this country in which a smoke-filled restaurant is the only place to work. I have to believe that there is some other place, even in a small county. Despite the absurdity of the emotional appeal to this fictionally oppressed worker, let us entertain such a place. A town that only has one restaurant. Assuming that the rest of the population commutes to elsewhere to earn the money to support this lone establishment, as well as get their groceries and clothes in these other communities as well, this restaurant with X number of employees is almost hardly worth considering, but, please let’s continue our sojourn into fantasy land. In simple matters of utility, how can the X number of employee’s utility be compared against the thousands of people who get utility from smoking in bars. Still, we press further, assuming that utility is not sufficient against the health of these X number of employees, what do we have to do to ensure that the these
employees retain their health, as well as keep the employees right to have a smoker friendly environment. The simple answer is that either the employees who place the health risk above the income for they receive from their employment quit. The ultimate fact may be that they have to move to one the localities that the other people in fantasy land are employed, or that they may have to suffer the consequences of unemployment. This is really is an example of the false value we try to place on human life. If human life is the ultimate value and the thing we must preserve at all cost, even from the minor danger of second hand smoke, what else should we due. The fact is that we do value certain things more than our occasional risk to health. Indeed, some even make recreational and leisurely pursuits out of risking their life. Why should they be able to do it, and not the employees working at the restaurant. The cold hard fact is that people do value expediency, production, and employment. That is why we have ever increasing speed limits instead of a static 10mph speed limit, thus reducing accident fatalities to almost zero. But, people like to get where they are going faster. Further more, it seems odd that the risks these waitresses take are put above the risk that coal miners or other much more dangerous jobs take.
All in all, the argument for banning smoking is wrong. It is a terrible infringement on individual and business rights.
In the end….
Man … I think I’m going to go light up my pipe just after reading this. A very thorough bit of writing if I do say so myself. I think that much of this is perpetrated by the anti-smoking lobby who has gotten a few old-maid/ nanny-state types to trot out in front of the state legislatures and say “Oh this is bad for everyone, those horrible smokers make going to a bar intolerable.”
But that is the way of the nanny state. They shall ignore personal property in favor of socially engineering a ‘better world’.
Now if you’ll excuse me … I have nicotine to put in my bloodstream.
Ok, here’s why I don’t like your argument. Let me just precede my argument by saying that I know you are trying to argue your “reason” against all of us schmucks who base our beliefs on “feelings,” but any ole feeling schmuck can tell you that any law or standpoint supporting smoking in any form, especially in enclosed public places around other non-consenting patrons, is ridiculous and ignorant. Smoking-related cancer deaths continue to top the charts, and nicotine is the #1 highest irritant to vessel endothelium, causing an abundance of spiraling cardiovascular complications in addition to the obvious pulmonary risks. In addition, more people die every year from second hand smoke related deaths than do in car accidents in the US. It’s stupid and selfish, there is no other way to put it. That being said, if you think supporting smoking in public is supporting “individual freedom,” then you are absolutely neglecting the role of the tobacco industries in your “freedom”. With 5.5 trillion cigarettes smoked around the world annually, where do you think all that money is going? $4 billion alone goes to advertising in the US every year. In the 2007-2008 election year $28.5 million went directly from tobacco companies into the pockets of the House of Reps and the US Senate members only, I would be interested to know the amounts the current presidential candidates have accepted. Whether you support the gov’t or not, these are the people calling the shots right now, and whose best interests do you think they’re supporting- certainly not yours! In addition, look at all the tax money the government is reeling in with cigarette sales- do you think they would ever truly be able to put a damper on the tobacco industry? Just last month the cigarette tax in New York state rose another $1.50- hello!? The tobacco industry has this country wrapped around it’s little finger! You know people will pay the extra- what would the gov’t do without all this tax money and personal pocket-padding?? Also, the tobacco industry itself represents a lack of freedom. Within the tobacco industry in our country, there is a total monopoly, Philip Morris alone represents 45% of the tobacco revenue. You can go ahead and cry foul with these new laws taking effect in various states, but every time you see someone light up you should be reminded that you are enslaved to those who have put billions of dollars into swaying your thoughts and infiltrating every aspect of every day life, and all for the sake of a product that has absolutely no positive attribute whatsoever, not even in moderation. Also, as far as infringing on business rights, there is no supporting evidence that these new laws have harmed businesses, quite the contrary, in fact. Many countries overseas implemented these laws years before we caught on. A government study in Sydney actually found that the number of people populating bars and clubs rose after the anti-smoking law, evaluation of the hospitality sector in Ireland showed no adverse effects after they implemented the laws in 2004, and right here is the US, a Zagat survey of New York citizens showed that out of 30,000 people surveyed, the overwhelming majority (6 to 1) reported that they have gone out to eat more often since the ban took effect there in 2003. I think you should reevaluate your definition of freedom, because like it or not you do live in the United States, a country bombarded with rules and regulations by which you function and live every day, there is no avoiding it, and that means that to a degree you are also a slave to the tobacco industry. Instead of taking a stand against these health-promoting laws, why don’t you back them up or try lobbying against these monopolizing murdering companies. I understand that there are many other recreations in this country which pose risks to those involved directly, but these laws protect the patrons and employees who are not choosing to subject themselves to the risks of smoking. Do you honestly think that without the laws in place, businesses would just choose to go smoke-free, which would in turn be the only other way people would have a “choice” in whether or not to be subjected to smoke during an evening out? There is freedom of choice to smoke inside or out, but what are the options for the non-smokers? In closing, if the government forced me to eat only vanilla ice cream for the rest of my life, as opposed to chocolate, that wouldn’t kill me. You cannot compare smoking to ice cream. Next time you see someone light up a cigarette with their O2 cannula still on, enslaved to the cigarette, next time you stand by somebody’s bedside as they make struggling futile attempts to take their last breaths as an end-stage COPD-er, the fear and the panic in their eyes overwhelming and the pain ripping, the next time you watch a family decide whether to stick a tube down their loved ones throat just to keep their chest rising and falling even though it can’t do it’s own work because of a lifetime smoking habit, after that then come back and argue that public smoking is a freedom.
Liz, you have a lot of your data wrong. I’ll be posting a full response later … and for all of us, please use the enter key, it makes long comments easier to read.
First off Liz … much of the data you claim to cite in your arguments is frankly bullshit. The EPA study on the effects of second hand smoke as the catalyst for 3000 cases of lung cancer deaths per year was thrown out of court in 1998 because the EPA cherry-picked their data to get their point across.
Now I understand that there are some new papers out of Britain to suggest that there are some effects however those papers are relatively new. I’d be interested to see their data analyzed by a third party in order to get a better feel for the effects. However, I have a problem with people telling me that the exposure to second-hand smoke is actually worse for me than living in a large city like Pittsburg, L.A. or New York where the air quality is really bad and you breathe it on a daily basis every time you walk outside.
There was a paper that found that the incidence of lung cancer deaths in the US among non-smokers was10 in 100,000 the incidence for those exposed to second hand smoke was 12.5 in 100,000. There was essentially no statistical correlation for lung cancer. And I want to know how Liz defines the term “second hand smoke related” means when she states that there are more people that die a year from second hand smoke than car accidents.
The US Population Clock estimates the current population at 304,537,962 let’s divide that by 100,000 and multiply by 10. this should give us a rough estimate of the number of lung cancer deaths in the US due to second hand smoke by comparing a set of averages. Dividing by 100,000and multiplying by 10 we get 30,453 case of NON-smoking related lung cancer every year. Now let’s look at that 12.5 per 100,000 data. This calculation happens to yield … 38,067 deaths. A 25% increase, BUT 7614 deaths could be linked to second hand smoke. Now the National Transportation and Highway Safety Admin states that there were 43,200 deaths on the Highways ONLY. This doesn’t include deaths NOT on the highway and not included on the NTHSA study, so lets assume there are quite a bit more. Now, you have to come up with proof that at least 35,000 deaths per year are directly AND causally linked to second hand smoke for your statement to hold true.
Also it should be noted that you apparently have no idea what the term monopoly means. A monopoly is(Via Investopedia):
“A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition…”
Now … 45% market share is not a monopoly and there is quite a good deal of evidence that eh only true monopolies are created by government intervention into the market.
Now I must confess I don’t understand your argument that: “every time you see someone light up you should be reminded that you are enslaved to those who have put billions of dollars into swaying your thoughts and infiltrating every aspect of every day life” What does Coke or Pepsi pump into their add campaigns. I’m sure that it is MUCH more than tobacco companies do. And those products can be linked to weight increases which can lead to diabetes and heart problems. We are always trying to have businesses influence us as consumers. That’s the nature of the game. However it is up to the consumer what to consume. The idea of putting that kind of discretionary power in the hands of government agents terrifies me. Look at the trans-fat ban in NY, or the foie-gras ban in Chicago. Where is the line Liz? The data says that government controls don’t stop once they start (I cite Robert Higgs paper on the ‘ratchet effect’ of government power).
Actually those smoking bans have harmed businesses. The revenue growth rates in states that have a 100% ban on all smoking in bars and restaurants are substantially lower than those in states that allow smoking in bars. So there is harm, you’re reducing the positive growth of business owners.
I also am amused by the way you go after Justin at the end talking about supporting laws that lead to good health. This is a fundamental violation of a person’s right to their body. It’s my body, Liz, not the federal government’s. Now if you choose to enslave yourself to whatever nanny government wants to allow you to do that is safe … you go right ahead, but keep your laws and your hands OFF my body.
So Liz allow me to finish with this:
Your ending was touching, but your data is flawed in many ways. How about you worry about running your life, and not mine?
P.S. This poster does not smoke cigarettes, he does however occasionally indulge in a fine cigar or a pipe.
Jon, you can be amused at my bullshit all you want, that’s okay with me. Apparently I did not make my argument very eloquently because we seem to be arguing different things, you missed my point. And no, I don’t care to argue numbers about cancer deaths, yes we got our data from different sources, that is not the point either. My main point of disagreement, which yes, was swayed by much talk regarding my disdain of smoking, cigarettes primarily, was that by supporting smoking, even in the form of supporting an individuals rights to smoke inside, is essentially, when you trace it back, supporting the tobacco industry which supports the government which is making these laws, including the law to ban smoking in restaurants. By damning the government infringement on personal rights and bashing this law, you are turning around and supporting the government inadvertently. That is the way I see it, you don’t have to, and as far as Coke and Pepsi, yes I find them just as disgusting, and no I do not expect that the government will regulate the consumption of their products, nor do I think that is necessarily the right answer. You missed my argument. And no, I was not writing to “go after” Justin personally, and if I was, he has an abundance of answers and retaliations of his own, but thanks for sticking up for him anyway. Also, thank you for defining monopoly for me…silly ole me, where I come from I always thought monopoly was just a board game! And Jon, allow me to finish with this: How about when you run your own life and make your own choices, if you decide to make choices that you know can eventually catch up with you, you better make damn sure have your own private insurance to pay for your problems that you created by exercising your rights, don’t expect it to come out of my pocket.