Okay, no one will deny that smoking is bad for ones health. At the same time, one cannot deny the fact that tobacco is a legal product and a cash cow for adding taxes to the coffers. That being said, the County Commissioners in Hennipen County, by a vote of 6-1, enacted a new ordinance that bans smoking from all county property with the exception of roads. The new ordinance is reported to potentially cost those taxpayers in Hennipen County $120,000 for new signs.
The costs of the signs is not really the issue; rather the issue is more government intrusion into our lives. One of the Commissioners who voted for the measure said that taxpayers rights end at "our" property lines. Mr. Commissioner I ask you, "Who is it that you refer to when you say 'our'?" My impression would be that all Hennipen County property really belongs to the taxpayer and not to the any elected official. Perhaps I am mistaken and I missed that part of my training to be City Council.
What will be next? What aspect of our lives that is legal for us to do will be banned? Did we not learn anything from Prohibition?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My apologies...but it's spelled Hennepin not Hennipen.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have such a proven public health problem. One that has been an issue for decades now, I believe that the county commissioners have the right to make that decision.
You have to wear a seat belt when you drive on roads, right?
But, then, I am not a smoker. The whole idea of smoking could disappear and I wouldn't have any problem. Its usually a smoker that has a problem with smoking bans
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteSeat belt that is the best retort? While I am not sold on the requirement to wear a seat belt I do regulate to the fact that driving is a privilege and part of my agreement to purchase a Drivers license that I will obey the laws put forth.
The Commissioner that voted against the ban is not a smoker. As for myself, while I do partake in a cigar from time to time I do not smoke in the house nor in the car with others that are non-smokers or the kids. I don't do it for the health factor; rather I choose not to.
I know I won't be visiting any establishment in Hennepin County going forward.
Viper
ReplyDeleteMany people throw out the smoker has to be against the ban because they lack any good reason outside it. As a non-smoker, I see any ban on a legal product an over reach of the government.
Viper, something to remember. It's legal for you to smoke, that's your right under the law. But your rights end at my nose.
ReplyDeleteIn the purest libertarian terms, your rights end where mine begin.
You do not have the right to force me to smell, breathe or otherwise inhale your smoke by demanding smoking access in public locations.
Given that, I have a hard time seeing how a libertarian could be against smoking regulations, since they limit your ability to infringe upon my rights.
That said, I have no problem with smoking just like I have no problem with drinking. And in the same way that drinking is legal but heavily regulated to protect citizens from drinkers, smoking is regulated to protect citizens from smokers. Do you find it unfair that drinkers are restricted from driving? If not, why not? Is the reason because drinking and driving has health impacts to those around the drinker? If so, how is that different from smokers smoking around others?
All the financial arguments bars/restaurants have made over the years about the ban hurting revenues have not been proven out by facts. They were hyperbolic and theoretical in nature to spur changes in legislation.
I've seen anecdotal proof of this when I've been in bars that were across the street from the smoking ban and found them empty. Cross the street to the banned area, and the bar is packed.
Revenue loss is likely less about legislation than it is quality of the bar/restaurant establishment.
Truman
ReplyDeleteNo one is forcing you to smell, breather or inhale the smoke of someone smoking in a public place. Especially if it is done in a well ventilated area. Plus, there are far worse carcigens in the air then the smoke exhaled from the use of tobacco. Bars/resturants have seen changes to their bottom lines due to the smoking ban. I have always contended that to really prove the point of smoking vs. non-smoking establishments that they both must coexist on the same block then we will see who does better. Unfortunately we do not have that.
I went to school in Grand Forks and there was a bar that was smoke free. While it did okay it did not attract the people that the other smoking establishments did.
Drinking is not the same as smoking in the context that you propose. You argument, if I have it right, is about drinking and driving and not just drinking, right? Since driving is privilege and one must obtain a license to drive, legally, one does give up some of their rights and are subject to regulations. One can go to the local water hole and drink themselves silly if they like. So when you ask, 'Do you find it unfair that drinkers are restricted from driving?'my simple answer is no.
Your question: Is the reason because drinking and driving has health impacts to those around the drinker? I assume you are talking about the drunk driver being in traffic with others to which I ask: What if that person is alone on the road?
The difference of being a smoker around people that do not smoke is that the non-smoking patron has a choice to be there or not. If open air areas(i.e. parks, golf courses, grave yards) are not properly ventilated to disappaite the smoke exhaled from tobacco then why do allow the product to be legal? If the hazards to health is so great that we need to ban it from public property, even in ones car, why do we allow it to be legal?
"No one is forcing you to smell, breather or inhale the smoke of someone smoking in a public place. Especially if it is done in a well ventilated area."
ReplyDeleteWithout bars installing incredibly expensive ventilation systems, smokers most definitely are asking me to breathe their smoke by smoking inside. Can you name one bar that is for this reversal of the ban that has installed the hardware necessary to make their "smoking" bar, smoke free?
"Plus, there are far worse carcigens in the air then the smoke exhaled from the use of tobacco"
Potentially true, but a red herring argument none the less. Most of those carcinogens come from coal and oil power plants, which unfortunately are required to run this country. That is why this is a red herring, because we can control our exposure to smoking, we can't control our exposure to breathing.
"I have always contended that to really prove the point of smoking vs. non-smoking establishments that they both must coexist on the same block then we will see who does better."
We have that in Chanhassen. Houlihan's allows smoking (or at least did last time I was there) while BW3 does not because it's in Hennepin Cty. But BW3 is packed all the time and Houlihan's is not. Explain why that is? Both have TV's. Both have good food. Both have the same location, just on opposite sides of the highway and in opposite counties.
If no smoking is such an issue for bars, why did Jakes in Chaska close while Old Chicago, Champs, Red Stone and all the rest in Eden Prairie not close?
Your analogy is false and the reason is simple. You are incorrectly using the correlation of no smoking to lower revenues in some bars to equate to causation for those bars lower revenue.
But, correlation does not equate to causation.
And no, my argument isn't just about drinking and driving. We regulate public drunkeness through legislation around disorderly conduct, public intoxication, etc. Drinking and driving is just one example. By your logic, if we don't regulate smoking and it's social impact on the non-smokers, we shouldn't regulate drinking and it's social impact on the non-drinkers.
"What if that person is alone on the road?"
According to our statutes, they are still breaking the law and very often, go to jail and face fines.
Here's the problem again - your rights end where mine begin. In this case, it's at the tip of my nose. The moment your smoke touches my nostrils, you have breached my right to freedom from that smoke.
Lastly, you are always the one complaining about social welfare programs and how citizens are being asked to subsidize bad decisions that other citizens make.
If you smoke, you burden me with your medical costs later on in life when you use medicare to pay for your emphysema or lung cancer treatment.
So here's the deal. I'll agree to indoor smoking if you agree to NOT use medicare for any future ailments relating to your smoking AND you agree to pay for any ailments I will incur relating to second hand smoke. That way you aren't burdening me with your smoking ailments and I'm not burdened by ailments I develop because of YOUR infringement of my rights.
Is that a deal? If so, feel free to smoke away. If not, don't infringe upon the rights of others to not breathe smoke.
I know my comments will be taken as utopian - because they are. But here goes....
ReplyDeleteWe need legislation on things such as smoking and drinking, because we can't control ourselves. That's the bottom line. And that is sad.......
So - to someone's point above - we have actually come to a point where we not only allow government to intervene (or interfere), we WANT them too. It's just easier than growing up and being responsible ourselves. Sad....
Now - I know we're not all smokers, so this accusation doesn't apply to all of us. But think of another area where government has intervened/interfered, and consider the fact that most likely we all have dropped the ball somewhere, and the government has picked it up for us. And we slowly become more and more dependent on the government.
Now - this isn't a comment to just rag on all of us. But here is the utopian part. Why don't we look at our lives, where we see that we don't like the government interference, and recognize why they did and change that in our own lives? Truman hit the nail on the head when talking about smoking and the longterm affects. And I don't mean that to rag on smokers - I can think of it in my life with food, and with the struggles I am having now as I slowly climb out of debt that I created. I'm getting out - but I see that I created that mess, and how I am one of the people who has helped create a mess in our nation
Another topic, I know, but used solely as an example of how we can change things personally - and the more we do that, and as more people do that, it will eventually cause change. We may not, probably won't, see it immediately. But give it time. Just as we slowly developed horrible habits and have declined in this nation, we can slowly correct that.
Does that mean we do that INSTEAD of the government intervening? No. We have no incentive to change. We should look at these things that happen that we don't like, and use them to incent us to change in our lives, and teach our children to change in theirs.
Utopian, I know. And probably rambling. But not impossible, even if it only changes ONE life.....
Truman - sorry to say but chanhassen is not in two counties.
ReplyDeleteTruman
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the part of the US or State Constitution or any law for that matter that calls out that smoke violates your right not to breath it?
As the previous Anonymous pointed out - Chanhassen is not divided into Hennepin and Carver County for if it were the building that Carver County library and Commissioners meet would be in Hennepin County according to your boundaries. As for comparing a bar/resturant in Chaska to the ones in Eden Prairie is not valid.
As for installing ventilation into a bar - at least the bar owner would have a choice to do so unlike under current law where that choice to run a private business is stripped away. I believe Ted is correct that Americans have become to lazy to be responsible for themselves and rely on government to be the final arbiter of our freedoms. That is truly sad an pathetic.
When is the last time you have heard of someone getting a ticket for public intoxication that was not tied to a traffic or property damage violation?
I like how you dodged the open air aspect of the conversation which is at the heart of the original post. Why might that be?
Where's the government intrusion here?
ReplyDeleteYou can still smoke, right? You can still smoke in your car on a road? (And litter said road with butts) You can smoke in your house, right? You can buy and consume tobacco all you want.
Where is your right to smoke on property that isn't yours? Yeah yeah, government property but you don't have unlimited right to access or use any government property. And I contend the "our" voted this people in and said they don't want smoking on their property. Since the majority voted that way, smokers have to suck it. The OUR spoke, it just disagrees with you so therefore it's an intrusion.
Is banning smoking on school property an intrusion? Is prohibiting drinking an intrusion? What about not being able to carry a gun?
This activity isn't banned, like you contend. It's simply prohibited on property you don't own or where a majority of owners with a say, say you can't smoke.
Sorry, this post is you not liking it and barking intrusion. They are completely in their rights to do this and smokers rights aren't violated. And you are taking a select view and acting like the sky is falling.
Honestly, grow up and stop acting like the world is ending when you disagree with something.
Anonymous
ReplyDelete"Honestly, grow up and stop acting like the world is ending when you disagree with something."
I don't see where Viper views the world ending with standing against the ordinance passed by the county. I do think it's a bit funny that you post anonymously then tell Viper to grow up.