The comments of mine below were the Letter of the Day in the Star Tribune March 19, 2008.
As bar owners continue to host "theater night" and pack in people, when will the message reach state agencies and the Legislature that Minnesotans' rights as business owners are being restricted by intrusive legislation?
The state Department of Health, in the March 5 article, claims that bar owners are violating the spirit of the ban ("Health officials to bars: No more theatrics," March 6). Why is it OK for the "spirit" of free enterprise and the constitutional right to pursue happiness to be ruthlessly savaged by the state of Minnesota's governing bodies?
The notion that smoking is bad for you and those around you is a debate of agreeable differences. The fact that society wants to trample upon the rights of a business owner is tragic. The state should reverse the smoking ban and replace it with an ordinance that requires all bars and restaurants to display on the outside of their building if they are smoking or nonsmoking establishments. If society truly believes that smoking is bad, then the smoking establishments will lose patronage and employees. Let the market dictate the rules of the game.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/16819996.html?location_refer=$urlTrackSectionName
Since the time of my article, bars have lost the loophole of “theater night”. Government still has no right to restrict a business in their service of a legal product. The demand for smoking in bars exists and many bars have established “smoking lounges” to help accommodate their patron needs. Personally I know my patronage to the local watering hole drastically decreased since the ban went into effect. The reduced patronage is a direct result of not being able to smoke in the bar.
Any interesting dilemma is taking place with regards to smoking, as reported last night by WCCO, as additional taxes are being charged. A $0.62 tax per pack went into effect on April 1st. The belief is that by pushing the price per pack above $5.00 it will deter smokers and price cigarettes out of younger smoker’s budgets. The question that WCCO pondered was at what point will tax revenue suffer?
The issue is not the right to smokers vs. non-smokers or if second hand smoke is bad for you. Two issues are at play here. The right for a business to offer an environment for a legal product to be used and the hypocrisy of Government to demonize tobacco while relying on tax revenue to meet budget needs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know there used to be exemptions from the state smoking ban -- not sure if they still exist -- but you're right. There are two issues at play here.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when looking at the big picture, health concerns of the many must take priority over the freedoms of the few.
Being a reformed smoker, I know that I appreciate it. I actually enjoyed having to take it outside and make a conscious choice. The ban helped me cut back and control the impulse to smoke, especially while drinking... which in turn helped me to more or less quit after 15 years.
And with my non-smoking friends, I know that they appreciated it far more than me. Some that were allergic to the smoke said they could actually stay and enjoy themselves all night. Plus, they didn't have to smell like cigarettes.
Add that to the fact that a lot of wait staff, bartenders, cooks, etc. don't always have a choice where they can work. There are a lot of young adults working at bars and restaurants that don't have the education or experience to work at other places.
But... let's swing the other way for a moment. Why stop your argument at bars? Should we open tear down the ban completely, so that people can smoke in every work place?
In California and other states, medical marijuana is legal. So should they be able to smoke dope in bars and restaurants? I'm sure people wouldn't mind getting a second-hand high, especially if they weren't aware they would be put at risk by going to these places (even with a sign on the door).
And expanding on your original idea of legality... what about drunk driving? Maybe we should open that up as well. Drinking is legal. Driving is legal. Why not? Why should the government tell us what to do?
Sure it's an extreme argument, but these laws are put into place for a reason.
Now, if cigarettes worked as a medicine to help cure some rare disease and didn't effect other's health in a bad way, then the government would make a law to allow for smoking. That's how we got things like handicap accessibility laws.
The argument against the smoking ban is a selfish one, I think. Opening it back up would cause some owners to get greedy and put their patrons and employees at risk intentionally just to make money. And those who aim their sites at breaking the ban are... smokers. And of course for them it's selfish. They're jonesing to light up inside when it's -30 outside.
I don't mind the freedom to do what you want to yourself, but I think the right ends when your freedom can harm others.
Oh, and government does a lot of things to raise capital in order to keep taxes lower. Lotteries, license fees, gasoline taxes all aimed at users to offset expenses. The tobacco tax is the same thing here, as it helps offset the government's (Medicare/Medicaid) expenses on the health problems smokers tend to have, especially later in life. It's kind of like how the gas tax goes to help take care of the roadways. I don't really see a double standard here when they use a tax as a deterrent.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the average life of a smoker is shortened by 12 years over a non-smoker. The CDC does warn that the data is hard to classify due to people starting and stopping or gauging the second hand exposure. With health care costs on the rise and the decline in smokers – 20.95 in 2004 from 42.4% 1965 according to the CDC – the strain non-smokers put on the health care system and the world through longer life spans is greater than that of a smoker.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of worker health is a ruse. Workers, skilled and unskilled, have the ability to chose where they work. Now if a bar or restaurant owner wants to offer a location that allows smoking, the government has not right to restrict in so far as tobacco is still legal. To maintain focus I will shelve medical marijuana topic for another thread.
To apply the logic of drinking and driving to a business right to offer a place for the consumption of tobacco is not parallel. Most will agree that smoking tobacco does not inhibit the ability of one to operate a motorized vehicle like alcohol can. Bringing in alcohol to the discussion on a business right only dilutes the conversation and distracts from the topic at hand.
On a personal note, I do smoke cigars on occasion. Granted my consumption ebb and flows with the temperature, it in no way consumes my day thus creating a “jonesing”. See below for the link to WCCO Good Question Segment and see the article on the website too.
http://www.wcco.com/video/?id=57968@wcco.dayport.com
http://wcco.com/goodquestion/everyone.quit.smoking.2.827733.html
The logic of drinking and driving to a businesses offering smoking is quite similar. One person consumes and puts others at risk from their consumption (one by action, the other by inaction). While one might not harm anyone, increasing the amount consumed and repeated exposure to this behavior increases the risks for others. That logic applies directly to your argument and, while you may think it extreme, was not meant as dilution.
ReplyDeleteIn the CDC report you mentioned, you didn't note (and I don't think the CDC report would have mentioned this) the staggering rise in health care costs in general since 1965, nor did it include any actual dollar amounts for care vs. cigarette tax revenue. Are they disproportionate? If you have those numbers, I'd like to see them.
Here's another article on smoking issues in MN from Fox 9.
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/Minnesota_Cigarette_Tax_Apr_1_2009
The government not only has a right to care for freedoms of the people, but also has the right to govern for the well-being of the people it represents.
The CDC report did not mention, at least I didn't see it, a comparison of cost between health care cost vs. tax revenue. The takeaway is smokers die on average 12 years while health care costs escalate as people age.
ReplyDeleteAlthough part of Government is address public health concerns, it does not need to stop the freedom of choice of a business owner to run their private business. If the community is outraged by secondhand smoke, why not allow the market dictate that? Why not allow the business owner the option to offer smoking?
Government can require that the air quality meet certain expectations. When I was doing some training for my former employer in Sputh Carolina a number of us went to a Cigar/Whiskey bar. We had three guys in our group of five smoking cigars and there was about another 15 or 20 patrons doing the same thing.
One of the non-smokers in our group commented, between sips of some very nice single malt, that the air quality was better in the cigar bar then in the hotel we were staying. The ventilation system they had was tremendous and one did not even hear the fans going. The smoke was being removed and we were able to carry one a conversation without the usual bar shouting.
Why not take this approach to allowing business to offer smoking? Why must we demonize it and ban it outright?
Demonizing smoking happens for the same reason that some people shout about how democrats are pushing socialism or how some say Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot. It works. It is a catalyst for debate among those who have opposing views and creates a stronger bond between those with like views. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.
ReplyDeleteThat same approach works for FOX News and MSNBC. That same approach works for most blogs too.
And I think if you stood toe to toe with any MN congress person who opposes it and scream about how you'd like the ban repealed, they still wouldn't go for it. And that is the rub.
Fact 1 - Democrats are pushing socialism. Fact 2 - Limbaugh can take an extreme right stance although he is often close to the mark. As far as Fox News vs. MSNBC - they do push opposing idealogies for the most part which is why I watch both channels because the only thing worse when debating a topic is debating the topic with the ill-informed.
ReplyDeleteIt is important that people not get their news from just one source which is why I attempt every morning to puruse at least ten newspaper websites, read the Star Tribune, listen to Morning Joe, and listen to talk radio. Everyone has their opinion and somewhere in the middle is the answer.
All the more reason why, with the coaxing of others, the blog before you has been established. I want this site to be informed, critical, and open for all thoughts - left, middle, and right. For without open respectful dialogue our world will disappear into the abyss.
Encourage all to come here and discuss the topics and freely post respectful intellectual points. The founding fathers used pamphlets and small printing presses to frame America. Lets continue that. God Bless America!!!!