Restaurant smoking ban and now more

Bob, you're going through a lot of contortions to try to come up with a regulation scheme that works, but you've not hit the real question head-on: if the market wants non-smoking restaurants as you claim (and I believe that, too), why is the regulation necessary? What makes a government official or group of lawyers more qualified to determine matters of courtesy and esthetics than private individuals in matters of voluntary association?

Why is Phyllis Schlafly more qualified to choose my porn than I am?

Yesterday, Albuquerque's mayor softened his stance slightly on not smoking on city property by exempting city-owned golf courses. (A financial decision, I'm sure, because there are privately owned courses.)

After restaurants went smoke free in Albuquerque (and there was the usual teeth gnashing and wailing), business is booming. Nonsmokers flocked to restaurants, replacing the human chimneys. (Isn't it amazing how one smoker in a large restaurant can make everyone else smoke?)

I certainly don't feel sorry for smokers. They can still smoke. Cigar bars, private clubs, casinos and a couple of other classifications still allow smoking. And I can choose not to frequent those places.

As a side note, I walk to my office every day and note the litter that has accumulated in the gutters. I would say smokers are the biggest litterers. There are literally thousands of cigarette butts in the gutters, on the sidewalks and even some on peoples' yards.

Those kind of litterbugs are brainless. Every once in a while, we get fires along our highways from tossed cigarettes. And this in a state that has frequent high-fire danger.

[quote="Maria Samms"
I am also an ex-smoker (been completely cigarette-free for over 6 yrs now), ...[/quote]

Good for you.

I'm glad I only flirted with it for about three months in tenth grade. Otherwise, I'd probably be dead by now: my grandfather died at 46 from lung cancer; my father at 67. My wife's mother, father, brother and brother-in-law also died from smoking. My mother-in-law used to tell me, "Cigarettes don't cause cancer" whenever I suggested she quit smoking. Now she's looking at the wrong side of grass.

[James Roscoe]

[quote="Maria Samms"
I am also an ex-smoker (been completely cigarette-free for over 6 yrs now), ...

Good for you.

I'm glad I only flirted with it for about three months in tenth grade. Otherwise, I'd probably be dead by now: my grandfather died at 46 from lung cancer; my father at 67. My wife's mother, father, brother and brother-in-law also died from smoking. My mother-in-law used to tell me, "Cigarettes don't cause cancer" whenever I suggested she quit smoking. Now she's looking at the wrong side of grass.[/quote]

Should people be allowed to commit slow suicide? Should they be allowed to do it in regulated public places? Should they be allowed to inflict their choice of suicide on others? Just askin'.

Should they be allowed to inflict their choice of suicide on others?

Certainly not, but sadly, people with the urge to dictate their preferences to others will hang their hat on even the flimsiest evidence of "inflicting their choice on others." Well, I can't PROVE to Mrs. Schlafly that my subscription to "Naughty Asian Nurses" isn't contributing to the level of rape, molestation, and other sexual crime. She's got some other study that says it does, we need to limit this if we can't ban it outright. So, I have to choose from the 20 selections from MicrosoftXXX, who bought all the available porn licenses, no others legally available.

Too bad. I really loved those nurses.

"Bob, you're going through a lot of contortions to try to come up with a regulation scheme that works, but you've not hit the real question head-on: if the market wants non-smoking restaurants as you claim (and I believe that, too), why is the regulation necessary?"

Because we are dealing with addictive behaviour, Stuart. If people have a legal right to smoke, some smokers will smoke, no matter how much the smoke from their cigarettes detracts from the pleasure of other people. And, if one smoker smokes, it triggers a similar action by other smokers. Just watch smokers -- you are an excellent scientist -- observe smoker's behaviours.

For me, the nub of the issue is how to prevent people from detracting from my dining and drinking pleasure. A ban on smoking rarely results in criminal actions. What it does do is empower people like me to enforce the smoking bans.

For many years, I would politely ask other diners not to smoke. I trained my kids to do so as well. Our requests were rarely honored, and often led to tense, unpleasant situations. [No one ever adopted your argument that smoking is an exercise of free speech -- thank goodness.]

When New Jersey switched to a no smoking policy, the dynamic changed completely. I would just mention that there was a no smoking rule, and that smokers had to go outside to smoke. I've never had anyone object -- some folks have thanked me, a couple apologized, not one has continued smoking -- and my dining pleasure has been greatly enhanced. My belief is that most people are law abiding, and the no smoking ban empowers me to prevent smoking without causing any interpersonal problems. Frankly, I haven't had to ask anyone to stop smoking for several months, and perhaps in time the law will no longer be necessary.

I'm seeking an alternative because I do agree with your basic premise that restaurant owners should be able to determine the style of their restaurants. I would also like to be able to recommend a smoking restaurant to people I ask to stop smoking in a non smoking restaurant.

There are times when a libertarian can use the law effectively to achieve a desired end without resorting to litigation. The ban on smoking in restaurants is, in my opinion, one such instance.

Regards, Bob

[Jenise]

As a side note, I walk to my office every day and note the litter that has accumulated in the gutters. I would say smokers are the biggest litterers. There are literally thousands of cigarette butts in the gutters, on the sidewalks and even some on peoples' yards.

I am amazed at the extent to which smokers seem to think it's okay to throw their litter around. Last summer after my July 4th party I had to pick cigarette butts out of my patio's ornamental river rock borders. There had been just two smokers at the party--two really diehard 3-pack-a-day types--and the butts matched their cig of choice. They were 75 feet apart at opposing sides of the yard, too, so it's not like anyone was following someone else's example. Smoking is fine, littering is not. I was so PISSED I mentioned it to one of the perps later. "Oh no!", she said vehemently, "I would NEVER do that!" Well, SHE DID. Fortunately she's moved out of the neighborhood so it's not an issue, but if she were here I wouldn't invite her again. I know she'd think "oh, I'm being blacklisted because I smoke" but that's not true, I knew she smoked when I invited her. She wouldn't be invited back because she lied.

A few years ago my sister spent two weeks with us at our home in Alaska. Come Spring, snow melt revealed a sizable pile of Marlboro butts in the garden next to my front door. Now I knew she'd gone outside to smoke but I never realized that she hadn't had enough class to dispose of the butts properly. So I mentioned it to her in order to make sure that it didn't happen again. "It wasn't me!", she denied, "I didn't do that!" Right! Of course it wasn't her, in spite of the fact that it was her brand and she was the only cigarette smoker who visited my home all winter. Right.

Listen, I too am an ex-smoker. I helped fill restaurants with smoke just like everybody else, but I never thought the world was my ash tray. Didn't throw butts out of car windows or into people's yards, never snuffed them out in drinking fountains and left the butts for other people to stick their noses in. Probably because I never got THAT addicted (quitting was easy), never got to the stage where my need to smoke trumped all other considerations as it seems to do to otherwise intelligent people like the people I mentioned above.

I've never told anyone they shouldn't smoke, it's their business. But litter? Yeah, you'll hear from me.

There are times when a libertarian can use the law effectively to achieve a desired end without resorting to litigation. The ban on smoking in restaurants is, in my opinion, one such instance.

I'm sorry, Bob, but a libertarian acting in such a way could not really be considered a libertarian, else the the word ceases to have any meaning. Using the one-size-fits-all approach of using the power of government to achieve one's desired social outcomes--whether a sober society enforced through Prohibition or smoke-free restaurants enforced by a smoking ban--is not libertarian.

Now, enabling the government to better enforce contracts (such that establishments that decide not to allow smoking are actually are smoke-free) would be something libertarians could support. But banning something everywhere just so one can ban it somewhere? Not libertarian.

For me, the nub of the issue is how to prevent people from detracting from my dining and drinking pleasure. A ban on smoking rarely results in criminal actions. What it does do is empower people like me to enforce the smoking bans.

IOW, to use the monopoly of force of the State to enforce your esthetic choices on other people in privately-owned places?

IOW, to use the monopoly of force of the State to enforce your esthetic choices on other people in privately-owned places?

Unfortunately, Stuart, this line of thinking can leave you in an uncomfortable position when applied to other areas. For example, as Robin pointed out above, racial segregation. You can take any privately-owned bus company and, because they are, in effect, a public accommodation, they are currently prohibited from enforcing their own private segregation policies or from racially discriminating among their customers. Privately-owned place, but there are public choices (enforced by the state) about how that place will be operated.

One could argue, as Milton Friedman probably would (as he did when he argued in opposition to government bans on racial discrimination in private-sector hiring), that the market will punish those who try racial discrimination--so there would be no need for government intervention. But, the market can take a long, long time. And if one is willing to consider governmental bans on racial discrimination but unwilling to consider governmental bans on smoking, what are the philosophical grounds? Both involve interfering with a private-property owner's right to use their property as they wish, no?

The market is slowest to respond when, like the bus companies you cite, there is a heavy hand of government interference. As long as there are significant legal barriers to entry (e.g., limited numbers of bus licenses and franchises, unreasonably expensive bond, licensing, and insurance requirements), then the market cannot swiftly punish the incompetent and venal. I can't immediately start The Yaniger Negro-Only Lap Of Luxury Transportation System to serve those who are ill-treated elsewhere with the omnipresent legal restrictions specifically designed to protect the interests of entrenched businesses (i.e., big lobbyists/contributors).

"to use the monopoly of force"

No force involved, Stuart, simply education. Just telling folks it's not permitted, works. That's good enough for me.

Why pray tell is a smoker's aesthetic decision superior to mine own?

"a libertarian acting in such a way could not really be considered a libertarian"

Boot me out of the club then Keith.

How should two "true" libertarians resolve their aesthetic differences when they clash? Who leaves or suffers, the smoker or the non-smoker?

And why is one who benefits from existing laws not a libertarian?

The market is slowest to respond when, like the bus companies you cite, there is a heavy hand of government interference. As long as there are significant legal barriers to entry (e.g., limited numbers of bus licenses and franchises, unreasonably expensive bond, licensing, and insurance requirements), then the market cannot swiftly punish the incompetent and venal. I can't immediately start The Yaniger Negro-Only Lap Of Luxury Transportation System to serve those who are ill-treated elsewhere with the omnipresent legal restrictions specifically designed to protect the interests of entrenched businesses (i.e., big lobbyists/contributors).

Okay, but now we are back where we started, no? There are similarly significant barriers to entry in the restaurant industry due to government regulation. So one could argue that the proportion of non-smoking establishments is lower than it would be if the market were allowed to do its thing with entrepreneurs entering at will. So do you make the hand of government interference a bit heavier only because it is already heavy and ban smoking (or ban segregration) or don't you?

How should two "true" libertarians resolve their aesthetic differences when they clash? Who leaves or suffers, the smoker or the non-smoker?

Presumably, the libertarian who smokes would choose to frequent establishments where smoking is permitted by the owner. The libertarian who does not smoke frequents establishments where smoking is not permitted by the owner. But the first would not advocate the government requiring that all establishments allow smoking and the second would not advocate the government requiring all establishments not allow smoking. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

And why is one who benefits from existing laws not a libertarian?

I'm afraid I don't understand this question. Libertarians, in general, advocate enormous changes in existing laws and are neither advocates of the status quo nor conservative. Indeed they are quite radical.

"The libertarian who does not smoke frequents establishments where smoking is not permitted by the owner."

Ah there's the rub. In this area at least, smokers smoked even if the owners asked them not to. And sometimes loudly insisted on their rights to do so. Except for a couple of vegetarian restaurants with hard assed owners, all of the restaurants served smokers.

Today the sitch is totally reversed -- and the few smokers soon stop if challenged.

Even Libertarians have to eat!

"Libertarians, in general, advocate enormous changes in existing laws and are neither advocates of the status quo nor conservative. Indeed they are quite radical."

But in the meantime, Keith, even Libertarians have to eat!

Regards, Bob

Why pray tell is a smoker's aesthetic decision superior to mine own?

Straw man. It's the choice of the property owner/manager. His or her esthetic is superior to yours in their establishment. In your place, you do what YOU want.

No force involved, Stuart, simply education.

I call shenanigans! It's a law, not a class, a commercial campaign, or a suggestion. I'm all for education and social pressure. That's very different than making it a matter for governments, lawyers, and courts, where ultimately laws are indeed enforced by the monopoly of force.

"Straw man. It's the choice of the property owner/manager. His or her esthetic is superior to yours in their establishment. In your place, you do what YOU want."

Nope. Many restaurant owners want to be smoke free but are conflicted -- they want to please all their customers, smokers and non-smokers. I'm just helping many restaurant owners achieve their goal of a smoke-free environment.

As you know, I'm always glad to help folks out, especially if it also meets my own self interest.

Regards, Bob

PS: Of course, I don't "help" restaurant owners who clearly want to have a smoky environment -- there's a really big guy in the upper Ramapos who serves great ribs always with a cig in his mouth. A great take out joint in my world. B.

I'm just helping many restaurant owners achieve their goal of a smoke-free environment.

I'm certain they're very grateful that they have you making their decisions for them. While you're at it, please require all restaurants to have vegetarian selections of comparable quality and variety as the non-vegetarian part of the menu. I don't understand why, when I take Linda to restaurants that SHE likes (e.g., Hungry Hunter), there's nothing for me beyond a hairy carrot. Even the salads have meat. Where are my rights to a decent dinner with my wife?

You know the old joke about the three biggest lies, and what the third one was...

"You know the old joke about the three biggest lies, and what the third one was ... "

No. I know lots of old jokes of course and tell them badly. But always interested in new old jokes.

Sorry, folks, I had to send that one privately. Definitely rated R, and I aim my posts to be a solid PG-13.

By the way (non-sequitor), I really liked the peanuts they can't serve on planes now. If your son were allergic to peanuts, would you approve of those laws? Or do you support them now? I'm neither for not against, just asking for the opinion.

AFAIK, those aren't laws, those are voluntary choices that the airlines have made to protect themselves against lawsuits.

one clearly associated with lethal diseases?

The evidence that there is any lethality whatever associated with second-hand smoke is of about the quality of the evidence that porn will cause me to be a wife abuser (keep Phyllis Schlafly's liver-spotted hands off my porn!). It's an esthetic issue and (mostly) an issue about the elite controlling the lives and choices of the benighted masses. In any case, no-one is forced to go to a privately-owned restaurant or bar. If you don't like smoking, don't go to a business that allows it (and I think that's where you come out on this issue, Randy).

Something tells me that if the California smoking ban disappeared tomorrow, neither McDonalds nor Chez Panisse will begin to allow it.

By the way (non-sequitor), I really liked the peanuts they can't serve on planes now. If your son were allergic to peanuts, would you approve of those laws? Or do you support them now? I'm neither for not against, just asking for the opinion.

Randy,

My son is highly allergic to peanuts and I just wanted to say that I still think it is completely wrong for the government to force airlines to be peanut-free or even peanut-free rows. It's not fair that everyone else should have to suffer because my child can't be around peanuts. So, what do I do? I don't take him anywhere. Next yr my daughter will travel to England with my husband, and I will stay home with my son. My solution would be that airlines "offer" food-free rows at a higher price. (I say food-free because my son is also allergic to milk and bread and eggs...so peanut-free doesn't help me at all). I don't think that airlines should HAVE to do it, but if they did, I would pay the extra money.

Randy, I would agree with Maria in principle on your peanut hypothetical. Private businesses not on the government tit should each determine in their own way how to accommodate people in ways to maximize their profits. Airlines aren't a great poster child for this issue because there are enormous governmental barriers to competition and most of them ARE on the government tit. As a crusty old cynic, I think that if you take money from the King, he can certainly ask you to bow down. I'd like to see more government involvement on getting more attractive flight attendants on United. The cute ones all seem to be on Southwest.

Peanut-free zones in restaurants? No way I'd support such legislation. Bye-bye Pad Thai. The smell of tuna makes me gag. If I were as rich as Bloomberg, I'd be lobbying to ban the stuff from any public areas.