The Victorious Opposition

Still, it was that guy’s fucking bar and he and his grownup customers had to pretend like they were teenagers smoking in their bedrooms

If this guy wants to keep his bar, he should not flaunt the rules as he does. I can spot (smell) a smoker literally walking within 10’ of me, it’s not that hard. If the smoke Nazi’s were so inclined as to do random checks, this guy would probably lose his bar. Try selling alcohol to a minor and see how long it takes ABC to shut you down, permanently. Since society has classified smokers as worst than child pornographers, I would imagine that if busted, this bar owner would lose his liquor license.

This sounds like a pretty good law from a libertarian stand point, although it does not sit well with me that those wanting to exercise their liberties must pay for the privilege in the form of higher taxes. I would prefer to allow the free market to work here, if you are a smoker and want to hoist a few while lighting up, you should be be able to do so at O’Leary’s bar, which advertises a smokers room for your convenience.

California was pretty much to blame for this loss of liberty. Just one of the many things the tree hugger nazis blazed a path on here which let the rest of the country’s government know that people will give up freedoms if you ram it through. It has since been passed by OSHA that people can’t smoke within so many feet of a doorway outside of it (please tell me how this minute amount of second hand smoke could hurt you). Some cities like Glendale and Burbank (the ones I work in) are completely smoke free, meaning that you can’t even smoke in a common area like the Main Street.

There is also a law in California that you can’t hang a cigarette out of the window of a vehicle. I’m all with you that there shouldn’t be a need for grown men to run around and hide like teenagers in a bar if this is what they’d like to do. I personally enjoyed going outside to smoke when I did, but I wasn’t ever a really dedicated smoker, I always had bad allergies. it never stopped me from going to a bar, I just knew to avoid a bar if I didn’t want smoke in my clothes.

If this guy wants to keep his bar, he should not flaunt the rules as he does. I can spot (smell) a smoker literally walking within 10’ of me, it’s not that hard. If the smoke Nazi’s were so inclined as to do random checks, this guy would probably lose his bar.

I am of the opinion that smoking is the prohibition of our generation. it’s impossible to stamp out, and ridiculous in the amount of government power allowed to regulate the rules already in place. I’m not a smoker, and don’t like the smell. However, if it comes down to freedoms, I’d fight tooth and nail to let someone do it. Even if it meant that someone was in violation of these ridiculous laws.

If there is such a market for people who want to drink in bars that aren’t smoky, then surely the non smoking bar business would be booming?

If there is such a market for people who want to drink in bars that aren’t smoky, then surely the non smoking bar business would be booming?

It is. This is the root point. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for smoking bans in private facilities. The market can take care of itself.

Public facilities (e.g. city hall, the courthouse, etc) are a different matter - places you are required to enter, sans any viable alternative - should ban things like smoking.

There really is no ambiguity about the hazards of second-hand smoke. But the government shouldn’t be involved in deciding where people can and can’t smoke unless it is the government itself that is requiring attendance.

As with most things, there are gray areas. Airplanes, for example. Private businesses, but monopolies in most parts of the world (i.e. there are relatively few major metropolitan areas where you actually have a diversity of airlines and/or airports to choose from). Should smoking be banned on airplanes? I think so, but it’s not as black & white as the bar vs. courthouse discussion.

But the “no smoking in bars” thing is clear-cut nonsense, no equivocation needed.

hang a cigarette out of the window of a vehicle

I fucking hate people that do this shit. If you don’t want that stink in your own vehicle, wtf makes you think I want that stink in my vehicle.

then surely the non smoking bar business would be booming?

This is my one and only point on this….

I would wager that bar business hasn’t changed a bit—that these new non-smoking bars are booming just as well as the old smoking bars were.  The reason?  Just like non-smokers will willing to put up with smoke in order to watch the big game with a pitcher and basket of wings, smokers seem just as willing to put up with walking outside every time they want to smoke.  Keep in mind, I’m in chilly Michigan, not temperate California, and I just don’t see people rioting at the few bars that have already gone smoke-free.

The “Free Market” never was in play, because there wasn’t any demand for 2 different types of bars.  I cannot think of a *single* smoke free bar in the state of Michigan (before recently, of course).  The reason is because bars had nothing to lose by allowing smoke inside the bar.  Or rather, they had nothing to gain by not.  The big theme of the Free Market is that our dollars do the voting.  Well, non-smokers (except for the most rabid) just don’t care enough about the smoke to not hang out with their friends.  Smokers, apparently, feel the same way.  So, if patrons were willing to come, smoking and nonsmoking alike, to their smoking bar, what did any bar owner have to gain by making a non-smoking bar?

So, let’s flip this—let’s say that, from the first time a bar opened, smoking was not not allowed inside.  Things would be pretty much as they are now in Cali and elsewhere.  Smokers and non-smokers alike would all come to the same bars, just as they had before.  The difference is that, now, the smokers have to step outside to enjoy their cigarette (hardly prohibition….) and the non-smokers can enjoy smoke-free nightlife.  I cannot tell you how many smokers that I know who are looking forward to this ban so that they “won’t come home smelling like smoke”.  I know that sounds crazy, but it’s true.  If smoking was never allowed in bars, I doubt you’d find a movement, here in 2010, of people pushing to make it legal.  It’s just really not that big of an issue which is why business hasn’t declined.  This was simply a result of “which way was it first?”.

I liken it to the laws against bringing alcohol outside of an establishment (or it’s fenced it areas).  You are still on the private property as you walk through their parking lot, yet it is illegal to carry that drink.  Is that any less of a gross encroachment on personal freedom?  If people had the freedom to walk through a bar parking lot with a drink and then, suddenly, had that freedom taken away, the rationale for the outcry would be the same.  However, all of us have grown up with the concept that you can’t take drinks outside, so we don’t even consider it.  Smoking is no different.

So non smokers don’t care about the issue enough to go to a non smoking bar.

But making a law to stop me from smoking is just fine?

In my book, you only make a law (restrict a freedom) if you really really have to. Banning me from smoking, because you’re too lazy to find an alternative is just wrong.

Put it this way. I don’t actually like pubs with loud music. I prefer to be able to chat. So I actively choose pubs that have that atmosphere. And the pubs that are quiet get my money, and the pubs that are loud get other peoples money.

But if I simply couldn’t be bothered to move pubs, it would be okay for me to ban loud music in all pubs across London. Just in case I happened to want to go in?

You make a great point, cress, but how many smoke free pubs are there where you live?  Would you have the ability to choose a pub that has a smoke-free atmosphere?

But making a law to stop me from smoking is just fine?

Why are their laws that prevent people from firing off their legal firearms in public places?

Why are their laws that prevent people from masturbating in public?

Just because something is “legal” and “a right” doesn’t mean that you have the right to expose other people to it.  Without a choice of smoking/nonsmoking bars, it is far less infringing to expose a smoker to smoke-free air than a non-smoker to smokey air.

I know I’m probably fighting the entire blog on this one, but I absolutely think that this ban is more about the status quo than about any specific loss of freedom.

There were a couple as I remember.

But my point is this : If the smoking issue was so important, then surely these non smoking bars should have been hugely more popular than the horrid smoky ones? If there was such a demand for non smoking bars, someone must have been making a fortune. If there was such a demand, someone would have cottoned onto it. There are so many themed bars, that non smoking was bound to come up eventually.

So if there were no non smoking bars, then we can surmise

a) No one really cared that much, so they went out of business

or

b) No one ever thought of the idea.

I tell you this - if there was a smoking bar in London right now it would have my business.

And the point about firearms and masturbating is a moot one. If its on private property (and not in public), then fine. I’ll choose not to go to the GunClub/Jacking off bar, and find a nice smoky irish pub thankyou.

It’s not as if there’s an entire population that become gun toting spanksters when they barrel up to a bar, and there’s a smaller minority of people that find the behavior repulsive. The way smoking in a bar works is that there’s an adult population that goes to one place to drink (and maybe) smoke. They shouldn’t be prevented this behavior because some guy in the back of the room says “Hey, knock it off. I’m tryin’ to drink here.” That guy should politiely excuse himself to the non-smoking bar.

There were arguments to be had with the waitresses, and other workers with how much second hand smoke they’re getting (the poor and defenseless bar wench couldn’t ever get another job after all), but even after hearing that I can’t see a reason to ban smoking in a bar.

An airplane. Yes. A family restaurant. Maybe. A watering hole? Give me a fucking break.

There were a couple as I remember.

That’s a couple more than I’ve ever seen.

And the point about firearms and masturbating is a moot one. If its on private property (and not in public), then fine. I’ll choose not to go to the GunClub/Jacking off bar, and find a nice smoky irish pub thankyou

It’s absolutely not moot.  They are 3 different activities that are completely legal but not legal in a bar (among other places).  If I asked you to explain to me why masturbation shouldn’t be allowed in a bar (where everyone is over 18—legal to see naughty bits), my guess is that your explanation would sound a lot like the explanation for not allowing smoking in a bar.  It’s not a choice of whether or not you can choose a jacking off bar or not….they don’t exist due to the law.  But, does that mean that nobody hasn’t slipped into the bathroom and rubbed one out?  What’s the difference between that and stepping outside for a fag?

That guy should politiely excuse himself to the non-smoking bar.

In Michigan, that bar is on the same block as the bar that allows masturbation and the one that allows you to fire off your gun.

Meaning: They don’t exist.  I’ve *never* known of one until now, as bars anticipate the new law.

That’s my point.  There is no Free Market when it comes to this—there is no choice for non-smokers.  If there was, this wouldn’t be an issue.  In fact it never was an issue because non-smokers will go to smoking bars.  Smokers, it turns out, will also go to non-smoking bars (and many actually *prefer* it that way!).  People are ONLY up in arms over this because they used to have the ability to do it and now they don’t.  If they never did, they wouldn’t care.

“Hey, I come to this bar to have a beer, a cigarette, and to rub one out.  Wait, are you taking away my right to rub one out?  That’s an encroachment on my rights!  That’s prohibition!”

Unfortunately for smoking, it does invade others personal space…I inhale it. I can’t help it if I am in one of those places. If it were a noninvasive activity, go for it. But many times I have to go to a bar/grill on business and not smelling like a damn chimney when I am done is actually quite nice.

But, until the laws were passed I just didn’t go to the best of my ability. So, no one got my money. Now that I can actually breathe, some do. And, I still see the same places packed so it seems the smokers don’t give to much of a damn.

But hey, either way I can spend or not as I please so if they repeal the law so be it. I can stay home.

the bar that allows masturbation

I have one of those in my basement.

TMI

I have one of those in my basement.

Oh, good lord.  You had me choking trying to hold back a guffaw on that one!  hahaha!

TMI

In the words of Chauncey Gardner, “I like to watch”.

Choking what kevin?

My esophagus.

You know, from the belt hung around my door handle.  </hutchence></carradine>

Unfortunately for smoking, it does invade others personal space…I inhale it.

Personally, I find the stench of foul-smelling people more intrusive and disgusting than cigarette smoke, and there are many who would agree with me.  Near to the point of gagging, and I as well am forced to inhale it. Is that sufficient reason to pass a law banning people with body odor from smelling nasty on someone else’s private property?

Except that is natural BO, I guess you could try. They aren’t trying to smell that way, they may not care about BO or it may be against their religion to use deodorant, but again, they are not artificially causing a stink that will invade your lungs and cause damage to health. You may be uncomfortable, but not in danger of losing the health of your lungs.

They could shower.  They actually do walk around to create and exacerbate that funk, expending many calories to buildup that under-manboob sweat. Or they could actually finish wiping their ass after they drop a deuce. Then trying to cover it up with copious amounts of AXE, which is not natural by any means.  Doesn’t help, just adds to a rancid atmosphere.

Oh, and certain types of music.  Very displeasing to hear.  Creates a bad atmosphere and causes undue measurable stress on some people’s nervous systems.  I’m sure a law could fix that, too.

It isn’t that 2nd-hand smoke smells bad. It’s that it is incontrovertibly a health hazard. Which makes it warranted to regulate it in places people are required to attend. But the rest can be handled by market forces.

Again Ryan…none of those things affect your health. Try as you might they are different issues.

But as I said, they can change the law and they don’t get my money. How good is that for supporting a free market?

My freedom ends where your nose begins or something like that. In this instance…your freedom is smoke and it not only touches my nose but goes to my lungs.

Loud music is another weak analogy. The effects have to be sharp and at decibels so loud and for an extended period of time before there is any damage. I have been to concerts and other places…while loud it isn’t loud enough for the amount of time needed to suffer damage (unless you are the musician standing in front of the speakers). I doubt any place that exceeds this has many customers.

Loud music is another weak analogy. The effects have to be sharp and at decibels so loud and for an extended period of time before there is any damage.

I bring earplugs to most concerts just in case.  Gasmasks, not so much.