CALL IT QUITS: Let’s go all the way, Houston…Forget baby steps and make ban total
Is it a matter of personal freedom? Our country has always respected the rights of individuals — until the exercise of those rights causes harm to others. That’s why an individual’s right to smoke in public places is trumped by the surgeon general’s report. So it is not a matter of personal freedom but rather of public health. That is why smoking is already banned in many indoor public places, such as office buildings, hospitals and government buildings. Some have argued that banning smoking inside bars that serve alcohol makes little sense, because alcohol is potentially so much more dangerous than secondhand smoke. The point is not which is worse. The point is that a ban will protect the employees of these establishments from the hazards of secondhand smoke. The customers have a choice where they go. The employees don’t.
I’m all for personal freedom, but as I’ve said all along (and I’ve been roundly criticized for it), your right to smoke is a distant second to my right to breathe clean, non-tobaccofied air. When your cigarette smoke encroaches upon and pollutes the air I breathe, your right to smoke ends. As arrogant as that may sound, it’s basically a public health issue. If you want to smoke and assume the attendant health risks, that’s on you. When your addiction adversely impacts of those who come into contact with your second-hand smoke, your “right” to smoke and your personal freedom come to a halt.
I realize that my argument may not be logically supportable to some (hold your fire, Adam….), but I can honestly say that I frankly don’t care. This is, as I’ve often admitted to, a very emotionally subject for me. Being borderline allergic to cigarette smoke, and growing up with a father who smokes has left me with a burning hatred of cigarettes. Few things anger me more than being around someone who carelessly, thoughtlessly, and inconsiderate fires up a cigarette around me. Perhaps it’s not a fair or reasonable reaction on my part, but I don’t care. I detest cigarettes, and as easygoing as I generally am, if you light up around me, you’ll quickly find out what an asshole I can become when provoked. Consider this fair warning.
Now the city of Houston has a tremendous opportunity to prove just how serious they are about protecting public health. Eighteen months ago, when the Houston CIty Council passed an ordinatnce banning smoking in restaurants and bars, it pledged to revisit the issue. Now the time is here, and the CIty Council needs to step up and take the significant and meaningful step of instituing a comprehensive ban against smoking in public places, particularly in hars and restaurants, where employees are too often exposed to the risks of second-hand smoke on a daily basis.
Hey, if Philadelphia can do it….
This is an urgent message for all Houstonians: In March 2005, City Council passed an ordinance that banned smoking in restaurant dining rooms. Many Houston residents had hoped for an even more restrictive ordinance, one that would have eliminated smoke from restaurant bars, stand alone bars and all other places of employment. At that time, Mayor Bill White stated that this issue should be studied and approached in an incremental fashion. So the City Council agreed to revisit it in 18 months. That time is up, and the issue is back — with a sense of urgency….
Is it a matter of personal freedom? Our country has always respected the rights of individuals ‚Äî until the exercise of those rights causes harm to others. That’s why an individual’s right to smoke in public places is trumped by the surgeon general’s report. So it is not a matter of personal freedom but rather of public health. That is why smoking is already banned in many indoor public places, such as office buildings, hospitals and government buildings.
Some have argued that banning smoking inside bars that serve alcohol makes little sense, because alcohol is potentially so much more dangerous than secondhand smoke. The point is not which is worse. The point is that a ban will protect the employees of these establishments from the hazards of secondhand smoke. The customers have a choice where they go. The employees don’t.
In addition, no one says secondhand smoke is not a risk. Some simply say that alcohol use may be a bigger risk. Now the surgeon general’s report says secondhand smoke is a greater risk than anyone realized. And that makes all the difference.
Public opinion has been turning ever more toward an outright smoking ban. While I’m not about to advocate curtailing what people do in their own private spaces, public health definitely trumps private addiction. While you may have the right to pollute your own lungs, you have NO right to pollute mine…and if that means outlawing smoking in any and all public spaces, then I’m all for it.
If smoking becomes an addiction that’s legal only in private spaces (cars, homes, etc.), then so be it. If this prevents even one person from developing cancer from exposure to second-hand smoke, then it’s effort well-spent.
Remember, my right to breathe clean air trumps your right to feed your addiction. You might not like it. You might not even agree with it. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
If tobacco was a new product trying to make it into the market, it would never be legalized since if used as directed it's very likely to lead to death, and has no redeeming qualities other than it's the drug that people are addicted to and that's why they should be allowed to have it. I wish that it were completely illegal, or at least controlled as a drug to be given as a prescription for whatever few medical benefits it has been determined as having.
Pro-smoking people are just letting their inner addict speak for them. If you've ever known someone who was addicted to a substance, you know what I mean.
My mother died a long slow death from emphysema, a 15 year spiral down of her vitality, unable to breathe, unable to walk far, eventually into a wheelchair, then bed-ridden, a whole year in a hospice. She continued to smoke because her addict told her it was OK to smoke with oxygen. Her oxygen-deprived and morphine-stoked brain thought the nurses had said it was OK. She set herself (including her lungs) on fire. It didn't kill her but she was pissed off because she could no longer smoke with the burned lung. She died several months later. 2 weeks after she died, my husband's father died from lung cancer. He had been one of those big in-your-face pro-smokers.
Ban it.
With all due respect Jack, it is simply not possible to be "all for personal freedom" while vigorously promoting a ban on personal freedom.
Your position on the matter is not merely illogical, it's indefensibly hypocritical.
Human-beings have been using tabacco products for possibly thousands of years. This is true. The use of tabacco was considered a sacred act by Native Americans. Then along comes 'whitey'... "Hey that's some really neat stuff! We'll take a thousand bushels!" As is our want, Europeans find a good thing and they abuse it. The corporations take the idea refine it and process it into a product to be enrich themselves with. Then someone has an idea! "Hey wouldn't it be neat if we could somehow enhance the naturally addictive properties of tabacco? Then we could HOOK people on it and buy more elected officials and lobbyists who will do our bidding!" These companies have been shown to have either COVERED-UP, LIED ABOUT or oherwise HINDERED the then mounting evidence that this product was harmful.
Under the guise of "Personal Freedom", supporters will wrap themselves in American Values and proclaim how evil are the people who would relegate smoking to non-public spaces.
You enjoy smoking? GREAT! But you WILL NOT do it in a public resturant or bar. You WILL NOT endanger the health of MY lungs or my childrens lungs. Your second-hand smoke is a health hazard...that is FACT, and as such it needs to be relegated to what it is: a public nuisance to marginalized and eventually and hopefully....forgotten.
Here's a little something to ponder... You have a minor vice: smoking. The waste product of your is smoke laced with carcinogens. You want to have the RIGHT to expel this noxious and harmful waste into the air that everyone else has to breathe.
I have a vice to.... I love a good beer or glass of wine now and then. The waste product of my vice is urine....how would you feel if I went and pissed in your drinking water....?
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A WHILE AND THEN TALK TO ME ABOUT PERSONAL FREEDOM, BOB!
Mr. Cluth -
Great post.
One human's "personal freedoms" are only validly defended when they don't impinge on the personal freedoms of another human.
If a smoker fires up a butt and the smoke wafts into my oxygen supply, that smoker's supposed personal freedom defense ends as that smoker has violated my personal freedom of breathing in non-cancer-causing air.
Some might argue that a fart by a farter in my air space could also be deemed as an affront to my personal freedom. True. However, unless that fart is cancer-causing, it doesn't violate my right to breath non-cancer-causing air. Offending my sense of decorum is a much different issue than offending my desire to avoid cancer-causing smoke and while I may dislike the fart, as long as it won't kill me and the offending odor subsides in a reasonable time, I'll overlook the intrusion.
Well Robert, if you urinated in my drinking water I'd probably assume that you were some kind of incontinent nutjob and simply get a fresh glassfull. After all, the earth's surface is about 75% water, so there's lots of it. There's ample air as well, so both of your emotional, ilogical arguments are actually pathetic straw men. (Now, if you purposefully peed in my beer, I might have to unsheath my buck knife and... Well, maybe we don't want to go there, huh?)
Who owns the resturant or bar? The public? A compasionately authoritarian nanny state?
If anyone would like to pretend that smoking ordinances don't infringe on property rights and personal freedoms, that's OK by me (it's not like your peeing in my beer or whizing in my wine.) The nanny state hasn't found a way to regulate self-delusion yet, so it's also legal.
Your "public freedom" to smoke is not universal. When your "public freedom" pollutes the air I need to breathe, something needs to give...and it's NOT going to be my right to breathe clean air.
Bob, you may think my position indefensible and hypocritical, but since when does a smoker's "rights" trump my own right to breath clean air? As much as I might like to outlaw smoking altogether, I understand that such a move IS indefensible. If you choose to smoke, and do it in a manner in which it does not pollute the air that nonsmokers breathe...hey, knock yourself out. If not wanting to die of cancer from second-hand smoke makes me a hypocrite, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to embrace and celebrate my hypocrisy!
public freedom?
Here in MA there has been no smoking in public places for years. The "private clubs", i.e. American Legion, Elks, were excluded. However the little town of Athol's (yeah, unfortunate name but appropriate for 80% of the town) Board of Health decided to pull the smoking plug on the private clubs too. Three of them banded together and took the matter to court. Court ruled that the clubs' employees were entitled to breath smoke-free air and upheld the ban. Now other towns in the state are enacting the same regulations. One for the good guys :)
BAN ALL BARS. AND ALL ALCOHOL! If you know one case of a person being killed by a drunk driver you must agree.
Not that you're actually going to change your mind, but I'd just like to point out one more time that this statement:
"Your ìpublic freedomî to smoke is not universal. When your ìpublic freedomî pollutes the air I need to breathe, something needs to giveÖand itís NOT going to be my right to breathe clean air."
Is bullshit. You do not have to breathe the air inside of TGI Friday's for one simple reason: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO FUCKING TGI FRIDAYS.
Bullshit, Adam! I may not want to go to TGI Friday's or any other crap chain restaurant, but what if my family or friends want to have a birthday party there? Sometimes we go places we don't want to go.
Written above: *"YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO [idiotic word] TGI FRIDAYS."*
Of course, (1) smokers don't have to go to TGI Friday's, either. And (2) once in a TGI Friday's, smokers do not have to smoke there. It's not that hard a concept.
Breathing clean air is a more fundamental right than smoking; therefore the first right trumps the second. Those who smoke in the presence of unconsenting others are simply sociopaths and guilty of assault. Those who persist should be dealt with swiftly and dispassionately as would be any other common criminals.
We'll if Some Guy is responding to the same Adam that wrote this some time ago, I can understand how Adam's frustration might have led to his choice of adjectives.
And for those of us who do know what we're talking about: no, actually, it's not a bunny with a pancake on its head. It's a bunny with two pancakes on its head.
Oh no, not a bad word! Please.
Of course, (1) smokers donít have to go to TGI Fridayís, either. And (2) once in a TGI Fridayís, smokers do not have to smoke there. Itís not that hard a concept.
First of all, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and you have zero understanding of my opinion. If you haven't read what I've written here about seventy billion times in the past, that ignorance is absolutely fine. However, don't tell me what is and isn't a "hard concept" with a grossly undersimplified answer to a straw man.
Secondly, your points highlights my argument exactly. It's not up to the smokers or the non-smokers to decide if smoking is allowed, the decision should rest solely with TGI Fridays.
Breathing clean air is a more fundamental right than smoking; therefore the first right trumps the second.
This is not a battle between the rights of smokers and the rights of non-smokers. To frame it that way is to horribly skew the argument. Rather, this is a debate that pits government control on one side and private property and individual liberty on the other. When supporting smoking bans in private establishments, you arenít making any statement whatsoever about the non-smokerís rights. What you are saying is that government power should be more important in our legal system than the principles of individual freedom and property rights. If this is the kind of government you envision, it is vastly different from the one founded on "unalienable rights" that I would like to live in.
What is at issue is the fact that the property ownerís right to smoke (or allow smoking) trumps the governmentís right to tell him no. That certain individuals who do not care for smoking may desire to patronize his establishment is irrelevant. It is private property, and the customer is fully aware of the smoking situation on the inside. If you donít like the situation, donít go. Much like you only have an expectation of privacy in your private space, you only have an expectation that the world will conform to your wishes in that same space. I refuse to sacrifice my rights on the altar of your desires, or my government's whim.
Those who smoke in the presence of unconsenting others are simply sociopaths and guilty of assault. Those who persist should be dealt with swiftly and dispassionately as would be any other common criminals.
Those who tell me what to do simply because they have decided to wander close to me are fascists and as the blade falls, my children will dance in the fucking streets. This cuts two ways.
I don't know what Adam's last name is, but I'm thinking it would look pretty good preceeded by
Supreme Court Justice...