In light of the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of second hand smoke, many state legislatures have taken up comprehensive anti-smoking measures. My own state had a blanket proposal tha would've covered all public businesses and state government buildings. The bill was pulled by the sponsor who didn't like the provision that cities and villages could write their own rules. In other words, some, not all, of public businesses could be exempt. This was unreasonable to the sponsor and thus, he had it pulled.

My thoughts?-The problem with comprehensive bans is this-it infringes on the "pursuit of happiness" on the part of the minority(smokers in this instance) by banning smoking in tobacco and bar establishments. Why shouldn't I be allowed to enjoy my hobby in a tobacco shop? Why is it necessary for the government to tell me not to smoke cigars in a business that sells them? Smokers shouldn't light up in county and state government buildings, places of employment, not to mention restaurants. However, bars and tobacco shops are a completely different thing. Anti-smoking measures without regard for the smoking minority are a gross absurdity and abuse of the legislative process, carried out at the hands of extremist health pedants.


Questions for debate:

1.)Should there be exemptions for bars and tobacco shops in regards to statewide bans?

2.)Should this issue be handled at the city level or the state level?, which would be better and why?

3.)Would a "patchwork of laws" that state senator Johnson believes is confusing, truly be detrimental to enforcing the laws?(If you don't know who he is, read the "pulled" hyperlink ya newbs.)

4.)Is anti-smoking legislation becoming unduly punitive to the smoking minority?

1.)Should there be exemptions for bars and tobacco shops in regards to statewide bans?

Tobacco shops- certainly- everywhere else that is public and NOT someones home- no. Bars are places of work, where employees are forced to breath the toxic waste in order to earn thier livelihood. Forced exposure to toxic waste IS NOT a reasonable job requirement, and the goverment can and should protect these employees from thier employers. If the bar is both a tobacco shop AND a bar- that would be a reasonable exemption, and the bar should have a tobacco distribution license, and it should cost the same as an alcohol license. That way- employees are working in a tobacco distribution zone, but even still, in these areas, tobacco shops includes- they should be required to smoke in bubbles that do not allow the smoke to escape from the voluntary users of the substance. If you are working at a bar- no one spills drinks in your mouth - well, we wish they would, but the intended target is usually hit, without forcing th barmaid to slosh down too.

2.)Should this issue be handled at the city level or the state level?, which would be better and why?

State level- tobacco money is huge- they simply can buy off city goverment, whereas state goverment is a little more immune to this particular breed of corruption.

3.)Would a "patchwork of laws" that state senator Johnson believes is confusing, truly be detrimental to enforcing the laws?(If you don't know who he is, read the "pulled" hyperlink ya newbs.)

Yep, you may not know when you are in city, county or state area- it should be statewide so there is no confusion.

4.)Is anti-smoking legislation becoming unduly punitive to the smoking minority?

Nope, in fact, they are very, very reasonable restrictions that stop short of making it illegal- the same as i wish for all, far less harmful substances like herion or Crystal meth

The rights of smokers stop where my breathing begins- same as any other drug use. tobacco is the most lethal and deadly substance known to man that we willingly injest. It is the only product legal in America, that, if taken as directed, will kill you. I am not allowed to drink alcohol next to a school zone, or in a a lot of other "public" places- it is a reasonable restriction on alcohol to designate certain areas that are legal to drink alcohol. many beaches, for instance, say "no alcoholic beverages allowed"- it is reasonable, it is an area that all the public are inhabiting.

I feel the same way about all drugs, they should be legal, you should be able to do them in your own private areas, where no one is forced to consume with you.

1.)Should there be exemptions for bars and tobacco shops in regards to statewide bans?
No. However, a statewide ban on bars would, for all intents and purposes, be unenforceable. Its a pretty clear sign that a law isn't going to work out when otherwise legal businesses with lots and lots of customers completely ignore it from the gitgo, which has happened here with a recently implemented smoking ban affecting all establishments that serve food, including bars that serve food. The bars are completely ignoring it.

2.)Should this issue be handled at the city level or the state level?, which would be better and why?
The issue has already been handled at the Federal and State Constitutional levels, there's not reason for cities to be involved, except perhaps for those that actually care about their constitutions, in which case they will challenge the bans.

3.)Would a "patchwork of laws" that state senator Johnson believes is confusing, truly be detrimental to enforcing the laws?(If you don't know who he is, read the "pulled" hyperlink ya newbs.)
Because of the fairly unique geo-political considerations where I live, the whole "patchwork" thing isn't really a significant issue. Driving 25 miles and rolling through 10 different jurisdictions in the process just ain't a problem out here. Thus, I can only speak to the issue theoretically, and say "yes", it will be detrimental to enforcing the laws. The question becomes, does the cost (not financial, but moral and ethical) of uniform laws outweigh the purported benefits. Simply consider the long and colorful history of alcohol legislation in this country, what with Prohibition, dry counties, dry states, state liquour stores, etc. It gives a pretty good primer on the dynamics in question.

4.)Is anti-smoking legislation becoming unduly punitive to the smoking minority?
No, its unduly restrictive on all of us. A business owner has the right to set his own smoking policies, period. Anybody who doesn't want to be subjected to the policies of the owner doesn't have to do business with him, either as a customer, supplier, or employee. The rights of the business owner should be respected, rather than trampled.

That is not true at all BD- there are lot's of very, very good regulations that came about because poeple were being forced to work in toxic waste- simply because industry didn't like what being safe did to thier bottom line. Toxic waste is toxic waste, and the employer has absolutely 0 rights when it comes to exposing them to toxic chemicals, without adequate protections.

Okay- instead of banning smoking in the building- they could just force employers to buy toxic waste re-breathers for the patrons- you know, those space suit looking thingies?

Corporate and business abuse of employees is one of the great strides we have made in protecting the freedom of americans against corporate scumbags that are more aware of the bottom line than who they are killing, murdering really.

Employees have a right not to be exposed to toxic waste, unless that is in thier actual job description, and are given safety equipment to protect them against that toxic waste.

We are talking toxic waste here- NOT some completely non-entity like "smokers rights".

First, there is no requirement that anybody work for anybody else. Second, and far, far more importantly, if your position is "toxic waste is toxic waste", then you're a hypocrite of the highest order. A normal, fully OSHA compliant garage exposes its workers to far more toxic waste every day than the smokiest of bars.

For somebody who claims to be a libertarian, you sure do have a deep hatred for the voluntary collective exercise of property rights.

I'm not talking "smokers' rights", I'm talking all of our rights to live our lives with minimal government interference, smokers are just the current stalking horse. You'll get exposed to more "toxic waste" standing on a Manhattan street for an hour than you will from second hand smoke working in a bar for a month! Grow up. You don't like smoking, and you don't like corporations, and so clearly Big Tobacco (or Big Tobackey to some) is part of your Pantheon of Evil. Well, I don't like smoking either. I think its stupid, and I think that those who take it up in this day and age are demonstrating that stupdiity is still a human trait. I've never let my own mother smoke in my car or my house, and I believe I did a good enough job of educating my children that smoking is stupid that, the last two having graduated from high school last week, none of them smoke. (That or I'm simply blessed with smart kids.)

Yet, I think that protecting the right of people to determine what they do with they're own property is far more important than coddling fools who think that the rest of the world should bow to their demands for a zero risk existence. If "second hand smoke" is really all that dangerous, imagine how dangerous first hand smoke is! Gadzooks, we'd better just ban ALL smoking. How dare we allow anybody to put toxic waste into the air or their own bodies. After all, how long does it take for that toxic waste to break down, what's the "half-life" of it? Imagine the risk that medical folks who have to deal with smokers take, as well as mortuary personnel? Oh, oh, let's not forget all those laundry workers who's lives are shortened as a result of exposure to second hand smoke from garments. After all, "toxic waste is toxic waste." Well then, no exposure is "acceptable".

Really BD- how many corporations are allowed to expose thier employees to toxic waste without regulation? -

I happen to know for a fact my shop doesn't, and have had it inspected.

We know for a fact second hand smoke kills poeple. The only retraction Penn and Teller have done on thier cow fecal material show (can't even name the show here ) is on second hand smoke.

It kills poeple.

Are you saying that it was a mistake for the goverment to regulate corporations safety protocols? That it was wrong for the goverment to demand, oh, fire exits for the workers- so they wouldn't be burned alive if there was a fire- as has happened here in the past?

See, in the "pursuit of happiness"- right before that, they say "life"- an employees right to NOT be exposed to toxic waste without adequate protections trumps the corporate bottom line and property rights, BIG TIME.

The libertarian platform also calls for private police forces- not for that silliness either

An employer's right to property is superceded by the employees right to life, and right to NOT be exposed to toxic waste without proper protections.

Shops are VERY heavily regulated- if I wanted to paint motorcycles-which I don't- I would have to spend around 125k to install an positive air filtration system to clean the air of toxic waste, and, I have to wear a suit with a positive pressure re-breather.

Employers hire folks to do dangerous jobs, but are required to provide safety equipment and training to minimize the danger.

If some business, outside of the simple distribution of tobacco products (here, the employee being exposed to toxic waste is a knowing distributorof toxic waste and should be a smoker themselves) - but if some business wants to expose thier employees and clients to toxic waste- then they should be required to pass out the correct safety equipment- pretty much a suit like an astronaut would wear- so no smoke could get in.

I am all for allowing poeple to injest toxic waste in the privacy of thier own home, whether it be tobacco, the worst drug in the world, or far, far safer drugs like Crystal meth, cocain, weed, whatever.

Just do it in the privacy of your own home, and dont' expose anyone else to it- you don't have that right, never have had that right.

The toxic waste is in the smoke- not the smell, BTW- there has been no study that shows that laundry workers are exposed to second hand SMOKE - or that the smell on the clothes are toxic- there are lots of studies that show that breathing in second hand smoke CERTIANLY IS toxic waste.

The studies are quite clear on how second hand smoke must be applied to be toxic- just as CO level in the air from cars represent unsafe levels/

Nice try on the lame slippery slope argument though. Gee, didn't expect that

1.)Should there be exemptions for bars and tobacco shops in regards to statewide bans?
No there should be no exemptions to the laws. Here in California, they have done exactly that and guess what, it works. It is enforceable and they have an effective method of protecting employees and customers at the same time.

Why should a person ever be exposed to the risk without being asked?

2.)Should this issue be handled at the city level or the state level?, which would be better and why? State level is the lowest minimal level that it needs to be addressed. I feel though that the Federal level of protection would be better. But I will take what I can get.

Why should I as an American be exposed to hazardous conditions just because I travel in un-enlightened states that allow it's citizens to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke? Where are my rights?


3.)Would a "patchwork of laws" that state senator Johnson believes is confusing, truly be detrimental to enforcing the laws?(If you don't know who he is, read the "pulled" hyperlink ya newbs.) Yes, because people will use whatever means they can to get around the law. And we are know that every lawyer worth his grain of salt will be working to get around those rules.

4.)Is anti-smoking legislation becoming unduly punitive to the smoking minority? And the rights of the majority are to be ignored? Sorry but everybody rights end at the tip of their noses. If they are endangering my health, then their rights do not exist period.

Just as people are protected from injury on a job site, the employees should not be forced to change jobs to be protected from 2nd hand smoke. No other health hazard in the work place is so protected by the government.

There is no such right to smoke, it does not exist.