Following on the heals of many such debates in Cities, Counties and States across the Country, the Omaha, Nebraska City Council is debating whether or not to pass a City wide smoking ban.

Much of the debate centers on this issue. "The right to breathe clean air. "

The question is, does this "right to breathe clean air" constitute a legal right? Or is this simply a marketing tool made to sway a paranoid public?

My opinion is that it does not. Here's my reasoning. If I leave Lincoln, Nebraska on a Vacation to New York City, the air in New York City is much dirtier then the air in Lincoln. By Lincoln Nebraska standards I am being forced to breathe dirty air, but my rights are not being violated since I voluntarily forfeit those rights, and I am not able to sue New York City for violating this "right" even though the air in New York City is proven to be less healthy then that in Lincoln, Nebraska.

If I am correct in this, then doesn't everyone, who enters a "smokey bar" or a Restaurant that has a posted "smoking area" sign, equally forfeit their "right to breathe clean air" just as the traveler did?

The question is, does this "right to breathe clean air" constitute a legal right? Or is this simply a marketing tool made to sway a paranoid public?

I don't know if there is a "right" to breathe clean air, but people certainly have the right to not have their health impacted adversely by others. The effects of secondhand smoke on people has been well documented to be extremely harmful - check out this bibliography of second hand smoke studies (pdf).

These are a few of the findings from these studies, but this PDF document goes on for 51 pages citing different studies and the summarized conclusions in chronological order.



What this all adds up to is that by lighting up a cigarette in a bar or restaurant you are endangering the lives of other people in your vicinity. The studies show that secondhand smoke is very bad for people and especially bad for pregnant women and children (who could easily be in a smoking/non-smoking restaurant).

I think I'm unclear about the premise of your position though, were you trying to suggest that second hand smoke isn't harmful or did I misunderstand?

I think what Redliner is getting at is that the city of NY, Boston,... is banning smokers from smoking indoors because they are polluting the air inside of the restaurant or bar or any workplace regardless of the owners wishes. If a person wants enters a bar they are held accountable for the quality of air inside the bar, while the city itself is lax on the quality of the air outside of the the same bar. When entering the city we have no right to sue the city for the damage that is done by the city when we ingest the smog. We leave our rights at the door, while when we enter a privately owned bar we have more say then the bar owner on how its managaged. I feel that letting a bar decide whether or not it will allow the their patrons to light up and let their patrons decide if they it is not worth the risk they can choose to go elsewhere.

I disagree with that position for a few reasons:
1) The city has little control over the air quality in the city. Air quality is impacted by numerous factors such as the number of people driving cars, factories, wind conditions, etc. Most of these are outside of the control of the city and even the state in some circumstances. You cannot write legislation that control the way the wind blows or tell people they can't drive cars.

Smoking on the other hand is different. You can very easily control whether someone has the right to smoke in certain areas or not. Smoking can also be directly tied to health problems in non-smokers. When someone lights up in a restaurant or bar everyone around them is immediately in danger of developing health problems.

2) Given that smoking has been proven to impact the health of non-smokers why should non-smokers be forced to accept that? In the case of a restaurant, are you suggesting that non-smokers shouldn't go to a restaurant that allows smoking because they should expect to inhale smoke with their meal? The whole smoking section / non-smoking section for restaurants is completely bogus, in most places people are merely separated by an open air wall and a few pillars or something, hardly adequate protection from smoke.

In other areas of society we do not allow people to directly inflict harm upon others. We have laws against rape, assault, murder, theft, even malpractice. Given that smoke has a direct impact on non-smokers it logically follows that it should also be prohibited in public buildings.

So you advocate greater government control on the premise that it is very easy to do?

The problem here is that everything is becoming a right.

The right to have a job.
The right to have a health plan.
The right to have clean air.
The right to a government sponsored retirement.
Patients' Bill of Rights.

None of these things are rights.

The real "Bill of Rights" is a list of things that the government was prohibited from doing. What does clean air have to do with the government oppressing the people?

Rights are not things that are physical items or conditions of being. They are prohibitions on government action.

The question is, does this "right to breathe clean air" constitute a legal right? Or is this simply a marketing tool made to sway a paranoid public?
It is not a legal right. It is a marketing tool (just as those other terms are). It has nothing to do with limiting government power.

I didn't intend for this to be a debate on one studies merits over anothers. But I will address the "right to adversely effect others" issue.

You are correct, yet, we do have a right to enter facilities where we know, by entering, our health could be adversely affected.

Several case in points:

Police Officers
Firefighters
Doctors & Nurses

Then there are things we all do everyday, that do adversely effect others:

Put on perfume
Own a Cat
Fertilize our yards
Drive a Car
and on and on






Again, it is the individual that enters the facility that controls this, not the facility owner (unless somehow he has mind control powers). My example has a "smoking area" sign posted at the door.

Are we then saying that this is not a "right to breath clean air issue" but a right to eat at any Restaurant or Bar that we choose" issue. If so, will the Government be forced to supplement the poor so they are afforded the "right" to eat at upscale Restaurants?

Banning smoking is equivalent to banning people from driving cars, they're both overstepping government's bounds.

Banning smoking in public (government) buildings is well within the realm of government. Banning smoking in certain areas for immediate safety risks is ok as well.

Government banning smoking in privately owned, privately run establishments infringing on the rights of the bar owner. If the vast majority of people don't like smoky bars, then bar owners will make their bars, or a sufficient number of bars, smoke-free. This has already happened for the most part, in restaraunts. Likewise, engineering controls, used by industry dealing with hazardous atmospheres, can be used as well. Increased air exchanges, and deliberate design of airflow patterns, can be used to protect bar & restaraunt employees and patrons.

The smoking bans based on protecting employees are much like arresting Al Capone for mail fraud.

I have no problem with performance standards such as requiring all workplaces to maintain a certain overall air quality (not to be any cleaner than public areas such as a 4 lane public highway), or increasing taxation on tobacco.

To specifically address the question for debate, i believe breathing clean air should be a right, however, it should be enforced universally, on outdoor air quality only. Air quality inside a non-essential private establishment (like a bar or restaraunt vs. a grocery store or hospital), should be between the owner and any patrons.

Marketing tool !!! I am sick of those TV ads for the air cleaners.
I prefer the term safe air to clean air. Likewise water.
I watched a sidewalk interview where the reporter grabbed people randomly off the street and asked them "what percentage of (forget the specific chemical) would you find acceptable in our water?" and one lady said "zero". Well, that is not attainable in city water works. I suspect even distilled water has something in it that is measurable in the Parts Per Billion levels.
Point is, some people have unrealistic definitions and expectations in these situations.
We can't stop a volcano from polluting our air, but we can expect industrial enterprises to make an effort to contain their dangerous emissions. Their right to make a dollar does not supersede our right to safe air.
I also think that those who choose to spend considerable time in polluted atmospheres, such as bars and clubs, have no right to subsidized medical care (governmemt or insurance companies) when their lungs start failing, but that is a separate issue.

I would have to say I feel it does. Not in the specific sense, but in the general context of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I had this discussion with a friend who is a former smoker himself, and while acknowledging the health problems associated with smoking (why he quit) he still feels that smokers should have the right to pollute everyone else's lungs around them. He made the same crowded smokey bar analogy also.

My position is that a bar is a establishment for the serving and consumption of alcohol, not a smoke shop. His position was that smoking and drinking go hand in hand. My position is that now that he is no longer a smoker it doesn't deter him from going out drinking, and I who have never been a smoker am likewise not deterred. But there are many others who are affected by smoke, my wife for one, who does not drink anyways. He thinks patrons should know that smoking and drinking go hand in hand and that they should stay out of bars if they don't want to breathe the smoke. I think they should not have to alter their behavior to avoid others who are showing a blatant disregard for them, likewise I feel that smokers should not have their liberty taken from them.

The winning position in my personal opinion is that those who are harming others should be the ones to be made to acquiesce. That does not however mean that I feel that smoking bans are the answer to the problem. Like what I consider to be the correct way to deal with the issue may well be the least popular, but not everything is the world is designed for our convenience. I would have considered the appropriate solution to be the installation of ventilation systems which provide an airflow equivalent equal to that of being outside in a 5 MPH (or some other data based figure) wind per person based on the rated capacity of the establishment. I would imagine that the owners of the establishments would have screamed even louder about the capital expenditure for this than they did about their made up numbers of lost customers.

My second best alternative would be to allow establishments that wished to become dual use, both a bar and a smoke shop, do so under the existing laws for both. They should also be clearly identified outside for patrons to see that this is a place to purchase and consume both alcohol and smoke products.

The example comparing NYC air to Nebraska air holds true, empirically. Legally however it could be another issue. It's going to depend on how you want to compare how dirty the air is in one place vs. another. Do we go by a per person basis, do we measure known toxins only or do we use subjective "air quality" data, should any merit be given to localities that are diligent in their efforts to reduce pollution, such as NYC is doing ect. ect.?

And for the "smoking area" concept, NYC actually had that in restaurants a few years back. There needed to be a ventilation system and the area needed to be sealed off from the non-smoking area. All perfectly fine with me.

As for the original question, the concept of the "right to breathe clean air" is an attempt to loose the point of the issue in the specifics of the example, the real issue is "do we have the right not to be harmed by others", I feel we do. I do not feel industrial plants have the right to harm us with pollutants when there are ways and means to reduce and eliminate them, I do not believe airlines have the right to damage our hearing by flying supersonic aircraft over population centers at full afterburner, or for concert/music venues to emit noise pollution to all their surroundings when measures can be taken to curb it, I do not believe that auto makers have the right to pollute when emission control devices exists, I do not believe that an employer has the right to poison you in the workplace or subject you to the risk of bodily harm when there are perfectly reasonable precautions that can be taken, I do not believe that one person has the right to take something that belongs to another, be it your wallet, your car, your health or your life expectancy.

Edited for spelling , grammar, added a sentance or two,ect, all my usual stuff.

Well, I think having the "right" to something is becoming an incredibly over-used political buzzword. If anything I would think that constitutionally this ban would fall under the "right to life, liberty and happiness" section.


No that isn't what I'm saying. I never suggested that people have a right to eat at any restaurant they choose, even if they can't afford it. Let me try and clarify with an example.

A family of three goes to their favorite restaurant for dinner - and the mother happens to be pregnant as well. The restaurant is one of those places that has a "smoking section", but like most restaurants like this it is poorly implemented and the smokers really aren't separated from the non-smokers very effectively.

So they are eating dinner and a few people in the smoking section decide they are going to light up after their meal while they have coffee. Since the "divider" here is for all intents and purposes worthless our family of three ends up breathing this smoke in during their meal. Now in addition to the smell being disgusting, the people smoking are directly harming everyone at that table including the baby the woman is carrying inside her. Volumes of studies prove this out and I think people can pretty much accept it as fact that second hand smoke is very harmful, I doubt you'll find a single doctor that will tell you otherwise.

So, are you suggesting Red that this family shouldn't eat at their favorite chain restaurant merely because the restaurant accomodates smokers (albeit poorly) ? Does this family not have a right to eat where they choose in a healthy atmosphere? In the case of restaurants people don't have a choice because there are very few restaurants (if any) that outright don't allow smoking, the majority of them have at the very least smoking sections (which are completely ineffective).

I don't know if that is what Red is suggesting, but I do suggest that. There is no legal right to eat at that specific restaurant. If they care so much, I personally would recommend that they promptly return to their home, proceed to eat their rabbit food, and worry about scheduling their next colonic irrigation. The idea that a PRIVATE establishment has to be run in a way that accommodates anybody is pure nonsense. It's private property. If I choose to open a restaurant and put up a sign that says "Pure carbon monoxide inside", I should be able to, and the people should make a choice whether they want to be there or not. There are PLENTY of smoke free places, and the more demand there is for them, the more there would be. Nobody is being "forced" to breathe anything, they are making a CHOICE that certain people feel the need to protect them from.

I am sick of people expecting me to alter my lifestyle to aid them in their idiotic quest for immortality.

How is this different than banning people from smoking at home? It is also a private area. Shouldn't a pregnant woman be able to visit her friend without harming her and her baby's (who is suddenly not a fetus anymore) health?

Edited to add: Woohoo, post 300!!!

In your example, it'd be perfectly acceptible to for that family (and the majority of other customers who are non-smokers) to take their business elsewhere. This is a perfect example of something that the free-market should take care of.

And all your studies show things like "second hand smoke increases risk of X by 50%". I want real risk numbers, my feeling is that while the risk of X may be increased by 50%, "X" is still incredibly rare, or only occurs after a lifetime of exposure, or only becomes apparent in old age, due to extended lifespans from better medicine.

How is asking you to refrain from smoking during a meal (and causing health problems for others in the process) such a tall order? Is it that hard to resist putting a cigarette in your mouth for an hour at a time? And if you really, really, really can't control youself, simply stepping into the parking lot to get your fix?

You are quick to say that the people who choose not to smoke have no right to impose upon your lifestyle, but what right do you have to impose on theirs? Isn't that exactly the same thing you are arguing against or does it only apply if you are a smoker?

I can somewhat see the argument smokers have against banning smoking in clubs and bars, but in restaurants there should be no question. I live in a state where smoking is banned in public places and it is great, but if the rest of you want to continue to get cancer from second hand smoke that is fine with me, no skin off my back.


So why do smokers have some special privledge here? Furthermore, where exactly should they take their business? Businesses if left unregulated are going to try and accomodate both groups, and that means there will be people smoking at every restaurant. I have lived in places that allow smoking in restaurants - it is pretty universal unless you go to the ultra posh places that cost $60 a person for dinner. Again, telling all of these non-smokers (who represent the majority by the way) that they need to go eat at home isn't acceptable.

Your argument sounds like the restaurant belongs to whoever eats there. It does not. I am not demanding smokers be accommodated. I am demanding that the owner of the establishment make his own rules. If he chooses to make a place non-smoking, fine. I'll choose not go there. My problems is with the government forcing private establishments to cater to the.... nope can't use that word.

It should be a community based thing in my opinion, no higher than state government but preferably city government. I do not think the federal government should be making rules about whether you can smoke in public buildings or not.

I know what I think about the issue and if the area where I lived permitted smoking I'd be fighting for them to ban it. I can honestly say that I don't care what the smoking policy is anywhere else in the United States - because I don't live there.

If the people in a community don't care enough to press the issue with their law makers, then I don't really have much sympathy for them because they could be doing something about it. However, leaving it up to a business is always going to result in accomodating both smokers and non-smokers for the very reason you stated - if it isn't universal people will go elsewhere. So unless the owner wants to make a political statement, both groups will be accomodated because anything else would be bad business.

It's not a God-given right. If a restauranteur or bar owner chooses to make their business a smoking-friendly establishment and clearly post signs warning non-smokers of the fact, I don't see what the problem is. If you're a non-smoker of the "don't like it, but able to put up with it" stripe, fine go on in. And if you're a non-smoker who can't tolerate smoke, go somewhere else.

So far everyone here has been saying they have no right to impose on how a private business is managed. If you legislate that no building can have smoke that pushes all smokers outside in every situation, while allowing businesses to determine their own policy will leave it more equal.

The problem I have with this "Go somewhere else if you dont like it attitude" is that there arent alot of options for the non-smoker. I would gladly frequent a bar that was 1) cheap and 2) smokefree, but that kind of place doesnt exist. So I seem to have to settle for just going to bars that are cheap. What I find annoying about this is, as CJ pointed out, smokers have all the rights in these situations and are in the minority. I personally dont see a problem with having a highly segregated smoking area for those who wish to smoke, aside from the initial cost. I dont see why I have to deal with someone's smoking problem when I go out, because I have already made the choice not to smoke, but its either a) I deal with people smoking or B) I dont go out at all. Some choice.

I don't know where you live, but in LA it's the exact opposite. I don't have any problem smoking outside at non-smoking bars and restaurants, but I wish the county would allow bar owners to make their own minds up about it.



Well, self-evidently they're not the minority, in terms of the bar-going populace, or bar owners in your city would make their places non-smoking, right? Why lose the business of 75 percent of the population to accomodate the 25 percent with a bad habit? The short answer is they wouldn't. As the following link states, 80 to 90 percent of heavy drinkers are smokers, as well. link

My beef isn't really with bars - although I very much enjoy the smoke-free atmosphere in California - it is and always has been with restaurants. Non-smokers are clearly the majority of patrons there.

So why wouldn't restaurant owners make their places smoke free if the majority of people were non-smokers? Would you turn away 20% of your business if you didn't have to? I would think that would be a very poor business decision.

Your logic is sound, I support it. However I have to bring into question certain laws and regulations that a proprietor becomes subject to when opening a business. Catering to a specific type of client is fine but what happens if that client base is - for argument's sake, white? Does a business open to the public have the right to open a white's only establishment, or blacks only, " jews not welcome", or "keep your Y chromosomes outta' here"? Would you say that the owner should be subject to currently existing laws on the books regarding such matters, or are you in favor of having those laws specifically rewritten to cater to smokers as a group or category of persons? Do you support the scrapping of the current laws and regulations entirely so that the owner can "make his own rules"?

I don't know why restaurant owners wouldn't make their businesses smoke-free. I'm a smoker, and I prefer to eat in a non-smoking restaurant, along with most smokers I know. Getting a face-full of smoke while you're eating is disgusting, period. I don't think restaurants that ban smoking see an immediate 20 percent (or any) drop in their business, if that's what your point is. However, I do think that if I wanted to open a restaurant called "Smoky's" that had an ashtray at every table and served menthol Kools as garnish on the chocolate mousse, that should be my choice as an entrepeneur, stupid or not.



That's a faulty analogy - A) People are not inherently smokers or non-smokers, and B) no one is proposing non-smokers should be barred from a smoking-friendly bar - if they don't mind second-hand smoke, they're as welcome as anyone.

I didn't mean it to be an analogy, I meant it to ask the question of how far should an owner be allowed to go in "mak[ing] his own rules". Do we allow the owner total freedom, or should he/she be confined within the parameters of the laws already on the books.

Well, clearly the law doesn't allow owners to bar black people, or jews, or whomever from bars and restaurants. I'm not arguing that owning an establishment should exempt people from following laws about equal access. I'm saying that county and state governments, in my opinion, are overstepping their bounds by legislating against businesses being able to decide if they allow smoking or not.

I think what CD was refereing to was USDA and Local Health Department regulations on food preparations. If this is a correct assumption, then as a former Restaurant Manager I would address this.

The USDA is charged with insuring a safe food supply, and has nothing to do with a Restaurants owners right to run his business the way he wants to.

Local Health regulations are put into place because the Customer can not know how food might be stored and it would violate most statutes to allow all customers to participate in the food preparation process. Some of these regulations do not apply to certain Restaurants where the Customer actually prepares his own food, and differ with the level of customer participation. These regulations are put into place so that the customer is not facing the unknown.

To make this apply to smoking is a quantum leap however, as the Health Department can not regulate how the customer eats it's food.

The Business owner is still allowed to run his business how he see's fit, but must insure that the regulations for food safety, something that is outside of the customers knowledge, are met.

Note, none of these regulations require anything of the Customer. Thus the quantum leap.

I was thinking in the broadest of terms, since I don't have specific knowledge of full scope of regulations that operating a business must conform to.

But as an example, I don't think there are any means by which a proprietor could post warning signs and therefore be exempted from:

proper fire code, (sprinklers, extinguishers, fire exits, ect)

safe workplace regulations, wether or not bartenders/waitresses/staff smoke or not is irrelevant if local regulations require protective measures be taken to safeguard employees

if any specific local regulations which might forbid the use of known health hazardous substances (smoke), or forbid the allowance of their use, in a confined space without proper ventilation

if any specific local regulations which might forbid exposing the general public to an environment which is known to contain hazardous substances (asbestos, PCBs, or other building materials).

Depending on the local regulation and the local definitions, it may be a quantum leap to try to classify smoking under the specific guidelines, but in some other cases it might not be. But do we allow the owner to "make his own rules" and thereby exempt himself from any regulations he doesn't like, do we classify smoking under already existing regulations, do we classify smokers as some sort of "class" and therefore make a case for discrimination?

I think I was the only one so far to put forth a solution (which I think covers the situation while not being at the expense of the rights of either groups of people), does anyone else have a suggestion that extends beyond the scope "you don't have the right" (to tell the owner what rules he has to follow, to tell smokers what they can and can't do, to tell non-smokers what rights they do and don't have)?

And none of these would deny the businessman the right to run his business (serving the public food or alcohol) in the manner, or environment he wishes.

Again, the customer is bringing in the consumed product of this debate. The owner only allows the consumer to consume what he/she brings in.





I will point this out as, not many know this, but if you visit a building, built prior to 1980, the chances are that you are surrounded by asbestos. It is in floor tiles, carpet glues, Heating and Air Conditioning Ductwork and sheetrock mud. All of these are "friable" and can release asbestos into the interior atmosphere.

I find this relevant as, most people assume it is not in the environment when they enter a facility, yet it well could be.

The difference is that no one is out there attempting to scare you about it, even though it is probably a greater "health risk" then ETS.

Let me ask a general question. Knowing what I just told you, will you decide NOT to go to a Bar or Restaurant if you know it was built prior to 1980? How about a Mall or a Car Dealership?

PCB's may indeed be present in some buildings in the ballasts in some light fixtures. If any of these have survived and remain installed, how would you know? You wouldn't, yet you will not fear them because there isn't a group of rabid activists out trying to create paranoia.

The businessman would still be subject to whatever regulations are applicable concerning the maintenance of a safe environment. I don't see your correlation between smoking and "the manner, or environment he wishes", you make it sound like smoking is a decoration.



1) The customer does not have the right to harm others, be they the staff, or the other patrons, and the owner/manager may in fact be responsible to ensure that no harmful behavior, or violation of other law is allowed to happen in his establishment (bar fights, illegal substance use, prostitution, for example). I would say that the establishment should fall under existing guidelines regarding these matters.
2) Most bars that I've visited have, at the very least, a cigarette vending machine, other outright sell smoke products of all sorts, many restaurants I've seen also have cigarette vending machines, in many places smoking in eateries is not permitted by local regulation, should there be a difference because one place serves food and the other alcohol?
3) A bar that serves food, must also comply with regulations regarding the food service industry, likewise restaurants that also serve alcohol must obtain liquor licenses where applicable. My suggestion is that establishments that wish to permit smoking/sell smoke products should be made to comply with existing regulations governing these establishments.
4) In addition to being a merchant, the bar, bar/restaurant, restaurant/bar, restaurant/bar/smoke shop is also a place of employment for it's staff. Like any other business these places should be made to adhere to existing regulations that provide a safe workplace for it's employees, regardless of whether or not they are smokers themselves.





Again, existing local regulations. I know that in my area asbestos is not permitted to be friable, it must be encapsulated. In floor tiles it is encapsulated so long as the tile is not shattered, if it is the area must be asbestos abated, same for sheetrock and HVAC ducting insulation, carpet glue is a new one on me. But I would imagine that if it is in the glue it is not friable.



You are correct, I find this to be a fine example as to just how stupid so many people are.



The laws and regulations already exist regarding asbestos, they do not regarding smoking. Before there were the regulations regarding asbestos there certainly were people out there "attempting to scare" us about it, so that the dangers would be fully understood and the regulations and laws put into place. Now that they exist the need to scare no longer does, or is diminished. When laws and regulations about smoking in confined unventilated areas are in place I would suspect that much of the "scare" about it will also fade.



NO, but I would think that my tax dollars are being spent to have the health department come in and address this issue on their regular inspection. Not that I have much faith in the bureaucracy to to find and fix every small detail and concern, I do expect that if friable asbestos was clearly visible hanging from the ceiling tiles, plumbing insulation or HVAC ducts, that the owner be held accountable under existing laws and regulations to properly address the issue, and not be allowed to "make his own rules".


Same as above.


I may not know, but I certainly would fear them. If in a light ballast they are considered encapsulated, if the light ballast were to blow out and set the stuff loose, as a worker I would demand that proper protective equipment be provided to me if I were the electrician who had to go and replace the ballast, or if I were an employee of one of the tenants of the office building I would demand of my employer that he/she demands of the building manger that all proper abatement procedures be followed, I would follow that up with a call to the EPA, labor relations, any unions present in the building, the DEP, and any other government agency that I could think of. I would also take pictures if I could, and even a sample of the material if I had something handy that I thought would provide me adequate protection to do so.

ChargedDust:

Engineering controls are allowed to protect employees who must work with hazardous materials. The same consideration should be allowed for employees of bars.

As for other places of business 'doing what they want', fundamentally, I have no problem with that, as long as they don't lie, cheat, or steal from their customers or anyone else for that matter. If a business wanted to exclude men, or women, smokers, non smokers, white people, or black people, they should only be accountable to their customers and investors. Heck, if the business wanted to make it's building out of gasoline coated tinder, they should be able to, though I doubt they'd find an insurer. In fact, that's about the only qualification for occupancy I'd have: valid liability insurance. OK, i'd also tax any environmental emissions they make.

May I inquire as to the reasoning why this would be the sole requirement?

It's my sole requirement because it is more comprehensive, more fair, more competitive, and cheaper than public regulation and inspections. I'd still allow local zoning laws to choose what types of businesses and buildings exist: height, setback, even facade criteria; number of bars and liquor stores, casinos, strip clubs, etc.

I prefer free market solutions to do-gooder subjective regulation. Your morals may not be my morals.

OSHA regulations protect the employer (from liability) far more than they protect the employee from injury. Case in point...OSHA allows 50ppm of Carbon monoxide exposure over an 8h workday, while NIOSH (not a regulatory agency recommends not more than 35ppm, and the ACGIH (not a government agency) recommends not more than 25ppm.

EPA regulations are similar.

For this particular problem, smoking in privately-owned public buildings, I think the free-market approach has worked just fine. Most restaraunts around me went 'smoke-free' long before they were required to do so. It makes sense (except for in diners at 3 am), most people, even smokers, don't like smoke when they're eating. However, it seems to me, that the bulk of the money spent in bars is by people who smoke, smoke when drinking, or don't mind smoke. As smoking becomes less and less popular, bars will freely and of their own accord, become smoke-free.

Damn, now I'm even more lost, the only one I follow is the last one. Could you elaborate.

What do regulations do? They're purported aim is to protect the public. However, they are subject to public review, and therefore influence from special interests. They wind up being complex, expensive to comply with, and don't always wind up protecting the public (the worker, the environment...) after all.

However, if you maintain an unsafe workplace, and I get hurt while working there, I can sue you for damages. If you can just declare bankruptcy, i don't get my damages, if you have insurance, I can recover.

If you have a 'regulation' underground storage tank, and it leaks into my groundwater, I get nothing. If you were held liable, I get my damages.

To be specific, the insurance would have to be "all-risk", and I'd prefer thinner 'corporate' shields such as limited liability.

Likewise, if one insurance company's rules were burdensome and expensive to comply with, a competitor would undercut them with a better total package.

Found this today and just thought I'd share....




http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/09/20/smoki...n.ap/index.html