Why Bermuda Does Not Need A Public Smoking Ban

Royal Gazette Opinion, Thursday 2 June 2005

Last month, Health Minister Patrice Minors revealed plans to restrict smoking in public places such as bars and restaurants. Legislation could be tabled by the end of the year.

An increasing number of jurisdictions, including New York, Ireland and Scotland, are doing the same. Philip Barnett, head of the Chamber of Commerce Restaurant Division, has said that most bar and restaurant owners would support a ban. The UBP is enthusiastic. Public sentiment seems to favour it too. I think it’s misguided.

I am not a smoker. I’ve only ever smoked one cigarette and I found it a thoroughly unpleasant experience. (I will, however, admit to being partial to the odd cigar every now and then.) While some may question the scientific evidence linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer, heart attacks and coronary heart disease, I’m quite prepared to believe that it will hasten my journey to the grave. I’d much rather eat in a smoke-free restaurant and I’d be far happier if I could go to a bar without my clothes smelling like an ashtray at the end of the evening. If a ban is introduced here, I certainly won’t lose any sleep over it. It just seems unnecessary.

I’m not a big believer in Governments legislating to protect people from their own stupidity. If you want to go outside during a hurricane, eat KFC every day of the week, or smoke a hundred cigarettes a day, you should be free to do so. You’ll have to deal with the consequences, not me.

However I do believe in Governments legislating to protect me from your stupidity, if I can’t avoid it on my own. I’m happy that it’s illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol, for example: I find it tough to recognise a drunk driver until I meet one in a head-on collision on the wrong side of the road.

Second-hand smoke is something that I’m perfectly capable of avoiding on my own, however. That’s why the zeal of some of the anti-smoking campaigners makes me uneasy. Some seem to believe that it’s their God-given right to be able to go into any bar or restaurant without encountering a whiff of smoke. The way I look at it, it’s just another factor in my decision to go there, like the quality of the food or the speed of the service.

Some, such as Philip Barnett, have suggested that a ban is necessary to protect the health of those who work in smoky bars and restaurants. “They don't have a choice, they have to work in those conditions,” said Mr. Barnett. Nonsense. The staff could put pressure on management to change its smoking policy, get a job at one of the non-smoking establishments, or simply resign. No-one is compelled to work anywhere, whether they believe it’s hazardous to their health or not.

The best evidence that a Government ban is unnecessary is that Bermuda’s restaurants have already started to implement their own. According to Charles Jeffers, public relations officer for local pressure group Bermuda Advocates for Non Smoking, a year ago there were only 20 smoke-free restaurants and diners in Bermuda. Now there are around 45. That’s enough for smokers and non-smokers to be able to chose a restaurant on smoking policy alone, if they so desire.

I eat out a lot. Yet even in those restaurants where smoking is allowed, and where there is no separate smoking section, it’s rare that I actually find myself breathing in someone else’s smoke. As such, an Island-wide ban seems like a disproportionate response.

On most occasions when I’ve found myself sat next to a smoker, I could have asked to be moved to another table. Yet I have never done so. If I can’t even be bothered to move away from the smoke, I don’t think I’ve any right to ask the Government to move the smoke away from me.

Neither have I ever suggested to any of these restaurants that they include a non-smoking section, or ban smoking from their premises. This tells me that I probably don’t find their smoking policies to be as big a deal as I think I do. Which leads me to think that I’d probably prefer the Government to spend its time legislating about things that I do think are important.

I don’t like second-hand smoke. But I don’t need the Government to protect me from it. I just need to move tables more often, tell the restaurants that I frequent that I’d prefer it if their establishment was smoke-free, and avoid those places that I find unbearably smoky. It’s as simple as that.

Part of the Beltway Traffic Jam

Comments

[H Reardon on 02.06.05 at 09:03]

well said, Phil.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 09:23]

I agree with Reardon. (thats a first).

The last paragraph should be reported on the evening news. It encompasses so much in so few well chosen words.

I am a heavy smoker and if I go some where, not often, and its no smoking, hell, I enjoy my meal etc. then come out and have a fag/cig. It's all about balance and being a good neighbour. Thanks for the words of wisdom.

[sleepy on 02.06.05 at 09:51]

What about on commercial airlines? Would the same standard apply?

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 10:04]

When and if Bermuda gets it's own Airline, then it would be up to Gov. Right now we have to use foriegn supplyers and they say 'no smoking'.

After a meal on a plane I usually like to step outside and have a smoke but then again I have to think about the consequences of all those aboard. So i am damed if I do and smokeless if I don't.

[J Galt on 02.06.05 at 10:08]

Commercial Airlines??? they should be free to provide service to smokers or non-smokers, just as you should be free to choose to support or not support the airline of your choice.

[H Reardon on 02.06.05 at 10:10]

Cheers Terry.

The only point Phil didn't mention (and as a non-smoker that is against this ban to me it is the most important)is that it takes rights away from the bar/restaurant owner to run his business how he sees fit.

[jake on 02.06.05 at 10:21]

I think your point on the employees is naiive.

Employees have little negotiating power in practice, and what they do have - unions, legislation - is woefully lacking in the hospitality industry. People who are using these jobs as a means to stay afloat (a great number of them use them as second / night jobs) have little choice in how their establishment is run.

Unless a location is specifically set aside as a cigar bar or a smokers room I am in agreement with the ban.

I spent a few years in countries where the ban was in place and it was amazing, the contrast when I returned home to enhale someone's addiction as I dined.

It is a health hazard that affects people other than the smoker, and so it should be restricted so that it only affects the smoker.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 10:36]

Your point is well taken. The owner has to run his/her business according to the Liquor Licence Act. Thats the Law. If they want to allow smoking thats their choice. Nothing so far that I can recall states you cannot smoke in a Bar. There are designated area's in some places, this only to accomodate the differant clientel, which is the owners perogative. (dam. lost my train of thought, dropped my cigarette on the floor).

I think it has to do a lot with personal choice.
I spent millions of hours in the White Horse and Pub on the Square. People would still frequent the places, even when it was full of smoke. It was their hangout. If it got too much for a couple of non-smokers,they moved on or put up with it. The they walked behind a bus on the way out of St. George.

Until the Law is changed, I really think the owners should use their good judgement, which they seem to be doing to some degree, or words to that effect.

I guess there will be a few ups and down's on this one, until such time I will frequent a Bar/Res. that allows some leeway and have a beer and ciggy with my friends, and strangers too.

[m on 02.06.05 at 10:38]

Limey states:

"I’m not a big believer in Governments legislating to protect people from their own stupidity. If you want to go outside during a hurricane, eat KFC every day of the week, or smoke a hundred cigarettes a day, you should be free to do so. You’ll have to deal with the consequences, not me."

Thats an absolute crap argument. If you look at the rising costs of health insurance premiums and their relation to the huge number of smoking related illnesses and deaths - not to mention obesity and diabetes, there is no way that you can say that we all don't pay for the stupidity of smokers and those that eat too much crap. Society does suffer as a whole and it does affect you, limey, whether you think it does or not.

I hate government intervention, but I am all for banning smoking in public places. I don't like getting holes burned in my clothes, smelling like smoke, or inhaling that crap when I am out at dinner or at a bar.

Servers in the industry have little choice about the environment they work in. I completely agree with jake's argument. I don't want smoking to be all out banned, but I don't want it anywhere around me when I go out in public. If you have to smoke, go outside. Please ban smoking in all public places.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 10:46]

M, has a good point in their last sentence. The OLNY problem is The Criminal Code and the Summary Offences Act define a Public Place and this reverberates around what Offence took place. Last time I looked, I did not get a ticket for smoking outside St. Peters Church.
Again, more legislation.

Guys/Galls I am not trying to be a smart a...

[Bill Cook on 02.06.05 at 10:59]

Truth be known most bar owners are happy at the smoking ban.

The xtra cost of doing business due to smoking is substantial.

Not just the cleaning of ashtrays and urinals clogged with butts etc. but the really high expence of replacing carpet destroyed by smokers stomping out their cigarettes on the carpet.

In the Tam O Shanter we had a special Tartan carpet badly damaged esp at the bar area so had to cut it out and replace with tile which had its own problems.

[Longtime Lurker on 02.06.05 at 11:09]

Here we go again...

I think that my thoughts on the subject are pretty well summarized in the "No Smoking" thread. I support the smoking ban. That said, if the restaurant/bar owners get their acts together without government intervention, it might not be necessary.

Terry, your argument seems to be that since smoking in bars and restaurants isn't currently against the law, there's nothing wrong with it, so it shouldn't be banned. This is illogical as we're discussing a possible change to the law.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 11:13]

Yea right Bill. The only reason why the Tartan carpet was damaged is because the Scotty there did't like the idea of it not being from their Clan. The tile issue is just too silly to digest. The drunks kept slipping on it. Where was the Drunk picker upper, who is required by Law to be in attendance.? Managment fault Again?

Come on Bill what do you have to say about this?

Your points are well taken. Not only that, just the painting and cleaning of the walls can be an added, expensive venture.

You are correct, this does lead to more overhead.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 11:20]

Lurker, sorry if I offended you. illogical?

Wrong is your definition. To me it's like eating Liver. I hate it, but you can't make me eat. And since were discussing changing the Law, there is I doubt anything you or I can do about it, just abide by it. I did'nt come to the thread to debate back and forth rights and wrongs. Just trying to add my views like you. I am open to all opinions and feed back. Thank you for yours.

[Danielle on 02.06.05 at 11:23]

As I read your article I was a little disappointed that you would not prefer that government step in to control public smoking. Yes there are more pressing things that our government should be working on definitely but at least they are trying to do something for the people of Bermuda and especially me. As a non-smoker I am getting fed up with going into a restaurant and have to put up with cigarette smoke during my meal. It does not matter if the place has a designated smoking section the smoke lingers in the air and travels around the restaurant anyway. How can you enjoy the taste of a meal when all you smell is smoke and eventually it takes your taste buds away. What a waste of my money. Of course smokers need some where to partac in their own stupididty as you say but let's try to keep it out of restaurants. Bar smoking is fine as that is place to be entertained and is expected so banning smoking in bars is an outrageous thought but I should be able to enjoy a smoke free restaurant.

[Longtime Lurker on 02.06.05 at 11:38]

Terry,

Don't worry, you haven't offended me. I was just pointing out that when we're discussing what we think the law SHOULD be, we shouldn't be bound by what the current law states. If bar owners were currently banned from allowing smokers in bars, I wouldn't use that as a reason when arguing against you.

I think that this thread IS about debating rights and wrongs. We'd like the law to reflect what we think is right. I appreciate that you and I have a different idea of what is right... like you, I also value hearing opinions of all sides of an argument.

[Bill Cook on 02.06.05 at 11:43]

Terry,
We did have someone slip on the tile more than once but we tried that rubber slip proof matting but failed the flamibility laws.

Was in the carpet bus. also and supplied most big hotels,the amount of carpet that was replaced due to losing appearance with burns was high, and though some considerate smokers carried little ash catchers when smoking at coctail parties most did not and just stomped out the cigs on the $50 a sq yd Wilton Carpet.
most inc. the Tams was custom made.

The noise level in a bar without carpet is deafening.

Martin St James the hypnotist cured a lot of smokers here when he was the 40 Theives main act
remember Terry ?

[T on 02.06.05 at 12:19]

I say ban public smoking!! After being in Canada and having a smoke free environment and then coming home to experience smelly hair and clothes after a fun night out, I now stay home. In Halifax they have smoke rooms with a bar, therefore the person can still feel like they are in the club scene without having to go outside to smoke. I love to drink and therefore would love to go home without smelling like an ashtray.

[TJL on 02.06.05 at 12:24]

I'm with jake and m on the issue of a smoking ban to protect employees.

You have drastically overestimated the pressure that the employees of a restaurant can place on their employers - since bartenders and wait staff tend to be unskilled, low wage and easily replaceable.

You also overestimate the freedom with which a restaurant employee can simply up-stakes and switch jobs to a restaurant with a smoke-free policy - usually, you take the jobs when and where they're available.

Facts on the ground aside, the meat of your argument seems to be that it is not the government’s place to intervene in the private market to protect one party (the employee) from exploitation by another party (the employer) – that is, so long as the risks the employee will be taking on by working in a particular job are made public and clear beforehand, it is perfectly reasonable to allow the market to determine a fair price for the individual’s labour. By this reasoning, we should do away with minimum wages, mandatory health insurance and pensions, and a host of workers’ protections (for instance, it should be legal to demand sexual favours from an employee under threat of dismissal). This is pure, unrestrained capitalism, and carries with it the attendant costs. The most important from a self-interest standpoint is that a very unequal society is also a very unstable one – the great social revolutions of the past (in France and Russia) occurred in settings of enormous inequity. The welfare state and progressive taxation are two means by which modern societies have attempted to address the problem of excessive inequity, without going to the extremes of Communism and Socialism. This is not an endorsement of workers’ rights on charitable grounds - though it’s true I don’t feel that a worker should have to rely and depend on the collusion of his fellow workers (a.k.a collective action) to obtain basic reasonable treatment. Though it may appear to be an off-topic ramble, it is an argument justifying state intervention to provide reasonable protection against the exploitation which would undoubtedly occur in absence of legislation to the contrary.

I appreciate that defining as nebulous a term as “reasonable protection against… exploitation” is not going to be easy. But if you are against the implementation of a smoking ban, it should be because you feel that smoking is not dangerous, and not because you feel the government shouldn’t protect those who cannot protect themselves from others.

[chip on 02.06.05 at 13:24]

The smoking ban has been in place for many years on the West Coast and it has worked great. I can go out to any resturant or bar of my choosing and without having to put up with the smell of smoke in my hair, clothes, etc. The smokers have a good time as well, if they want to smoke, they go outside and then come back in.

[The Limey on 02.06.05 at 13:30]

H Reardon

The only point Phil didn't mention...is that it takes rights away from the bar/restaurant owner to run his business how he sees fit.

I deliberately didn't mention this because I don't see the owner's rights as sacrosanct as you do. For example, I'm quite happy for there to be regulations governing the way food is stored and prepared, because salmonella is tricky to see with the naked eye.

m

If you look at the rising costs of health insurance premiums and their relation to the huge number of smoking related illnesses and deaths - not to mention obesity and diabetes, there is no way that you can say that we all don't pay for the stupidity of smokers and those that eat too much crap

Not necessarily true. Smokers and those with poor diets tend to die earlier than the rest of the population, saving us the cost of dealing with the chronic infirmities that develop in old age. Without statistics, I'd be reluctant to say which had a bigger effect on our health premiums.

Danielle

As a non-smoker I am getting fed up with going into a restaurant and have to put up with cigarette smoke during my meal.

Have you suggested to the managers of any these restaurants that they make their premises smoke-free?

There is a list of every restaurant in Bermuda that does not permit smoking here. If you're that bothered by smoke, why not only patronise these restaurants?

TJL

You have drastically overestimated the pressure that the employees of a restaurant can place on their employers - since bartenders and wait staff tend to be unskilled, low wage and easily replaceable.

What would you do if you discovered that your job was potentially taking years off your life? If the people working in the bars and restaurants are *that* concerned about the health risks from second-hand smoke, and they can't find a job in a smoke-free establishment, they should leave the industry and do something else. Bartending and waiting tables are not the only jobs available to the unskilled. Or they could learn new skills to open up other job opportunities. I'm not saying it would be easy. But if you don't care about your health, why should I?

[TJL on 02.06.05 at 13:43]

Perhaps they could find other jobs. The question remains, should they have to? I listed a number of basic requirements we mandate employers provide to their employees in order to ensure a minimum standard of working environment - are you suggesting that clean air is somehow less important than those other things, or that none of them should be required of employers at all?

[m on 02.06.05 at 13:48]

Limey,

Okay, I'll give you that one! just found an interesting article here on the issue of economic costs of smoking.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n3c.html

m

[TJL on 02.06.05 at 13:49]

Additionally, it is wrong to assert that because an individual keeps a job in a smoke-free environment that they do not care about their health. Like everyone else, restaurant staff face a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether or not to take employment - for some it just might be a choice between lung cancer thirty years down the road and eviction next month.

[TJL on 02.06.05 at 13:56]

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9802a/ns-cato.html

This site argues that the Cato Institute is beholden to big tobacco money. I don't have any evidence to believe one over the other, so I leave it to the reader to decide whether or not to take Cato's "study" seriously.

[R on 02.06.05 at 14:31]

Quote from ASH UK (anti smoking organisation) dated 1999

It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html

[CB on 02.06.05 at 15:08]

Posted by Terry:

Sit outside in/on one of those Resturants on Front Street at 5.45pm that bans smoking. I just love those Buses, Ship Soot. Thats worse than Five Cuban Cigars, or mabe better. Toxins. Get it right.

Terry,

All the items you mentioned do spread poisons yes. But at least they are OUTSIDE - same place smokers should be.

[guestworker on 02.06.05 at 15:15]

If there were more decent open-air nightspots than this wouldnt be such an issue. Lets take the rooves off of some of our clubs, and put up some umbrellas. Somebody, PLEASE build a cool bar on/near a beach, the likes of which you see in Spain and the Florida Keys. I will go there every week. Smoking legislation is another infringement on personal freedom, I dont smoke, but I dont think that this legislation is necessary.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 15:27]

You have a valid point. I'll take that to heart. Thank you.

[Jonathan on 02.06.05 at 15:52]

It may interest you to know that a study conducted in 1993 regarding the Medicare Program (federal insurance for people over 65 years old) in the USA found:

Annual cost per beneficiary (non-smoker): $3,839
Annual cost per beneficiary (smoker): $6,352

Since this is a federal program, it is funded by the taxpayer.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 16:13]

I stand to be corrected as usual, knowone in this thread has mentioned that Nicotine is adictive. I have been smoking for 40yrs. I have tried to kick it a few times but with no success so far. Rum is adictive too and has been stated to be a disease. My chances of dying of lung cancer are 100 times more likely than other forms of cancer. Smoking can lead to strokes, heart attacks and a host of other ailments/deaths.

Jonathan is correct that the Tax payers subsidise in a way. But the government should lay off regulations as to where one can conrtibute to their own death.

I did a survey too.

100 % of smokers die.

100% of non-smokers die.

Page 2786476345 of the book of life.

[Danielle on 02.06.05 at 16:44]

No I personally have not suggested to any restaurant that they make their establishment smoke free why waste my breath or be humuliated by laughter and talk behind my back. They should get the message when i ask to be seated some where else because the smoke is bothering me. Nevertheless, I do not eat out like I use to especially now because I am pregnant. Furthermore, why should I have to limit my choices down to non-smoking environments and I should be able to eat were I please... everyone has rights but when other peoples right effect others it is a problem. If I feel like a certain meal than that is what I want.. instead of saying oh can't go there because they allow smoking. I have eaten at both a smoke-free and smoking environment and I must admit that a smoke-free environment is so much better.

Going on another tangent if West Coast and part of the East coast can go smoke-free than so can small little Bermuda. If you think about it the tourist that travel from those parts and are use to non-smoking places why would they want to come back...and believe me our tourist industry already needs all the help IT CAN GET...

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 17:00]

Danielle, some good points. Fact, the East nor west coast are smoke free. When they are let me know. I live on the east coast. The last time I went out, about an hour ago we still had smoking in some premises. If there was'nt I would move north or south. Plus I think that about 50% of visitors probaley smoke or thereabouts. Again, it boils down to choice.

Take care of that Baby.

Regards Terry.

[CB on 02.06.05 at 17:24]

This is a ridiculous argument and, quite frankly I'm surprised Phil has sided with the smokers.

Ciggie smoke is quite simply poison and should not be allowed inside buildings where the public go.

If I was asked to spray the inside ceiling of Robin Hood and I took a commercial compressor in there powered by an internal combustion engine, they would go nuts! I would be told how dangerous the colourless, odourless carbon monoxide is.

This is a much better comnparison than the endless pathetic ones I see in this column.

And Terry, perhpas you live in a State where smoking hasn't been banned yet. It will be soon.

[Terry on 02.06.05 at 17:32]

Cb, thanks for your words of wisdom. If that happens I will deal with it, the way I always have. If they say no, thats it. haven't been a lawbreaker so far in life(don't go that route).
Just trying to be a good citizen and obey the laws. Justified or not. And oh yes, you are correct aboiut the internal combustion engine.
I guess you don't get too many jobs working your painting practice while people are eating or having a beer.

I suggest sweeping floors.

[The Limey on 02.06.05 at 19:32]

TJL

…it is wrong to assert that because an individual keeps a job in a smoke-free environment that they do not care about their health. Like everyone else, restaurant staff face a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether or not to take employment - for some it just might be a choice between lung cancer thirty years down the road and eviction next month

I agree it’s a cost-benefit analysis. I just think the employee is capable of making that analysis for themselves. What’s more, your scenario suggesting it’s a choice between cancer or eviction is a false dichotomy – the employee can hang onto his job (so avoiding eviction) while looking for a new one (so avoiding cancer).

Danielle

No I personally have not suggested to any restaurant that they make their establishment smoke free why waste my breath or be humuliated by laughter and talk behind my back

If you believe your health is at risk, it’s your responsibility to act to protect it. I don’t believe any restaurant would ridicule you for suggesting that they go non-smoking. If you don’t want to do it in person, write a letter.

…why should I have to limit my choices down to non-smoking environments and I should be able to eat were I please... everyone has rights but when other peoples right effect others it is a problem

You have the right to eat wherever you please. You don’t have the right to expect a pleasant dining experience there. If you didn’t like the food a restaurant served, or its atmosphere, would you insist that they improve it because you have the “right” to enjoy your meal? Of course not. You just wouldn’t go there again. Why is a smoky restaurant any different?

CB

Name me the last three meals that you have eaten in a restaurant when your dining experience has been marred by someone’s smoke. Then tell me what you did about it.

[Andrew on 02.06.05 at 19:39]

Phil,

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your reasoning. Are you advocating a libertarian self-responsibility philosophy, or do you just oppose unnecessary regulation?

Either way, I don't see why we shouldn't make *de jure* what is already a *de facto*, self-imposed regulation.

While I rarely ever encounter second-hand smoke in any local restaurant, I'd much appreciate being spared the inconvenience of having to move my plates and belongings every time a smoker decides to light up next to me. I'd also appreciate the freedom to patronize any establishment of my choosing, without exposing myself to health hazards.

There's a Latin proverb (coined by Cicero or Pliny the Elder - can't remember which): Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex.

The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.

We know now that smoking kills. We've known this for some time. While we may debate the role of Government, no philosophical difference should stall this measure.

While you may prefer to look the other way, Phil, our legislators certainly should not.

[TJL on 03.06.05 at 08:35]

1) Again, regardless of the fact that the employee is capable of making the cost-benefit analysis, should they be forced to? We don't force employees (or allow employers to force employees) to choose between quitting their jobs and suffering sexual degredation, between quitting their jobs and accepting a sub-subsistence wage, between quitting their jobs and going without healthcare - why should we expect employees to choose between finding another job and breathing second hand smoke? If you care to argue that clean, breathable air is somehow more of a luxury than these other basic standards set for employment, or conversely if you care to argue that it is unjustified for government to legislate on sexual harrassment/minimum wages/etc, then please do so.

2) My example is a false dichotomy only if you assume I was making a statement which was a generalization of all (or most) of the situations out there. It wasn't. I don't claim that the majority or even many of the restaurant staff out there couldn't find other employment with some additional effort. But my belief is that it doesn't require a majority of a given population to suffer to enact legislation - if only a handful of employees are unjustly required to take on lethal risks in order to maintain employment (and I imagine there are some people for whom their current or similar jobs are the only viable option) then something must be done to protect that minority. Society can do no less.

[Raptor on 03.06.05 at 09:05]

Limey: Sorry, I am so disappointed by this post. It’s clear that you’ve made the personal-freedom-at-all-costs group (Galt, Terry, Reardon) very happy though.

In your computations about early death from smoking-related diseases, you’ve left out a couple of things: lost productivity is one—it’s big. But perhaps the biggest one is that THESE PEOPLE DIE, prematurely, often by many decades (sometimes in their teens from asthma), and the associated costs are absolutely huge both in terms of emotional loss and economic support to families, as well as a life’s worth of working, and medical expenses. I disagree with you. The individual is NOT the only person who has to “deal with the consequences.”

Just in terms of health insurance: I pay my own, and I’m healthy. I also realize that my premiums support the care of those who are not, and that’s fine up to a point. When my insurance gets to where I can’t afford it because it’s supporting large numbers of people with habits that are detrimental to their health and that command significant medical intervention, then I’m not so happy. Multiply this by millions, and you will see why both the government and health insurance companies have to try to do something. As Jonathan pointed out, U.S. Medicare bills are almost double for those who smoke.

It is not just lung cancer and coronary artery disease that kill. Bladder cancer, for instance, is almost totally attributable to smoking. And there are many other cancers that are as well. You also leave out the great number of people with asthma and allergies. I know you acknowledge some of the health effects in your post, but you also seem to think those of us who do not smoke can easily avoid the whole package.

Yes, I do believe I should have “the right to eat where I please” without encountering smoke. I should be able to go out to eat in a restaurant without having to worry, say halfway through my meal, about someone lighting up next to me. I’m supposed to move?! What right-minded chef wants people eating and smoking anyway? The food’s taste is spoiled. I’m not surprised they’re going non-smoking, but not all of them are.

To suggest that those who work in restaurants and bars where there is a lot of smoke can just get up and change jobs is disingenuous. Few people actually have that kind of mobility and wherewithal. One of the main reasons smoking is not allowed on U.S. aircraft is that the flight crews could not take the exposure, and their union supported them.

There are many reasons governments should stay out of people’s lives, but also some good reasons why they should get involved at times. I believe government legislation about how food is stored and prepared in restaurants (to use your example) is a very good thing. Laws against driving drunk (another example) are also right. Is the pollution on the roads in Bermuda, especially East Broadway, bad? It’s horrendous. Should there be government legislation about emissions? Yes, I think so. (The larger picture is the progress being made on this front by car manufacturers at governments’ behest). Both the health and global implications are clear. Is that pollution addictive? No. If all restaurants were made non-smoking, would that be enough? I don’t think so. The fact is nicotine is incredibly addictive, more so than heroin. Just where do you think the younger crowd is going to start smoking? Bars. What is the social pressure on them to fit in? We know it’s high. Again and again you hear the reason young people started smoking: to feel comfortable and to fit in social situations, often bars. If a certain bar is the place to be, how many of them are going to leave the smoke?

There were articles this past week in the online editions of both USAToday and CNN about how cigarette companies manipulated women into smoking. We also know they’ve carried their campaigns overseas from the U.S. to more vulnerable markets. The level of sheer manipulation to get people started and hooked has been clearly revealed in recent years. Virtually every friend I have who is a former smoker is incredibly grateful to have been able to stop. A couple who are still smoking have been unable to stop but want to. They go outside to smoke, then come back in and say they wish they could stop, all over again.

You say, “I am not a smoker.” Yet you admit to enjoying an occasional cigar. Best I can tell that does put you in the smoker category. Suppose you and your wife have a baby, are you going to smoke around that infant? When the child is older, he/she will know if you’re smoking somewhere else. What sort of message will that send, and are you actually willing to live with it?

What are you advocating right now, Limey, seems to be that there should be a bar somewhere for the personal-freedom-at-all-costs group to smoke. Go for it. That’s all that’s left when your other arguments just don’t hold up.

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 09:21]

I did not read Raptor's Book, it was not up yet, so I did the Thank You to Phil.

I can assure you Sir/Madam the Personnel freedom at all costs group that you speak of, does not apply to me. I don't know where you got that.
I smoke where I am allowed and thats basicly it. Its so simple.As stated before if the Law bans it, they ban it. There are not to many of us law abiding citizens left.

And just because I smoke does not make me a bad person. I might be a fool, thats about it. I have nothing to say on this Post again. If you have to call names and put Labels on people then do it on someone elses site. Free speach is free speach but you got to have a little leeway. Justify your own stands and beliefs before you suppress me with yours.

Actually, I am looking forward to the Rapture, then we will see who has really sinned.

Have a wonderfull somke free day.

Terry.

[Raptor on 03.06.05 at 09:52]

Terry: My apologies—I included you because of your responses to this particular post—your agreeing with Limey’s positions here. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. Limey said it’s all “simple,” and my argument is that it is not. I hope you have time to read what I wrote. You do seem to care about “balance and being a good neighbor.” That's important to me too. At no time have I suggested that smoking makes someone a “bad person.” I have very close friends who smoke. I make no association between smoking and “sin” either.

[tong on 03.06.05 at 10:01]

I haven't read all the posts but my 2 cents is that as a former smoker I know that its much easier to quit when it's not so easy to light up...and lets be honest personal freedom is one thing but smoking is just a stupid.

[Eric on 03.06.05 at 10:10]

This thread sure brought out a lot of opinions, but sure doesn't appear to have generated any true debate. Phil has stated his opinion and how he feels about it, and then we have all chimed in with our opinions on it. Great.

But a few (most?) of you are getting very worked up over it, to the point where you appear to be attempting to start a debate over this. Also great.
Unfortunately instead of debate, you are simply voicing that you feel differently about this than Phil does, and therefore he must be wrong. This is no longer debate and instead just an argument. A well crafted debate makes one think and while it may or may not sway someone's opinion, it can at least lead to an open discussion of the points. An argument on the other hand is two or more people stating differing opinions and then a lot of stomping and yelling, essentially what you see when a toddler doesn't get that candy bar and raises a loud fuss in the hopes that will work instead.

To those of you who are clearly worked up over this to the point where you actually appear angry at Phil for having an idea that doesn't coincide with your own on this matter - do note that for the most part everyone is agreeing on this thread about the same thing - nobody likes to be around smoke if they themselves are not smoking. This is pretty much a no brainer since it is unpleasant in smell, dirties the clothes, and generates much debate about personal health (I don't think there is much of any debate needed as to the harm done to the person actually smoking, but second hand smoke and its damage is more controversial due to poor evidence and strong lobby groups on both sides of the issue).
So for those of you verbally jumping up and down and stomping your feet over how much you hate smoking - note that nobody is arguing that point (at least not yet). I also don't think anyone is arguing the issue that nicotine is addictive (although I'll gladly go into the details of why that is so much the case if anyone is interested - I have done research into that in the past and it is pretty interesting... well, at least to me it is).

The larger point is the discussion of personal liberties and that is what Phil appears to be concerned about. Perhaps this discussion should evolve into the role the government should play in making decisions for us instead of whether or not smoking should be allowed, since that is what this issue grows into in the larger scope.
A few of you have thrown around the concept of having the undeniable right to do XYZ. To eat a meal without having to be uncomfortable (in regards to smoke in this case). The right to clean air. The right to not smell smoke.
So because of this right, which you feel you have, you also feel that government needs to step in and remove the rights of others. This clearly feels correct because after all, it benefits you, and therefore it must be good. But from the restaurant's perspective, they surely would feel that they should have the undeniable right to run their own business (which is a private establishment and has the right to create their own smoking bans, as Phil has already pointed out).
When you get into that line of thinking, you quickly hit a point of "rights which benefit me, good; all else, bad". This is worrisome since it is reminiscent of borderline personality among other things, which isn't terribly logical - not to mention that it reeks of Animal Farm.

In the end though, much like a discussion of politics, religion, what is the best book/band/movie/food/drink, or arguing with the ref in a sporting event - people generally don't just stop and say, "ohhh, now I see what you are saying - okay, I'm sold." We all have our varied opinions and most importantly we all have the right to these opinions and the right to freely air them. I would have to say that while personally I am all for the pleasant benefits that would come from a smoke free environment, I enjoy personal freedoms even more - so I would really rather not see government step in and try to manage yet another thing.
But if we are going to ignore all of that debate crap and just stick to this "you are either with us or against us" mentality (if it is good enough for Bush, then it surely is good enough for us right?), then I would like to stake my claim over on Phil's side.

Also:
1) I would like to point out that this might be the first thread ever on LiB which didn't devolve into a perceived race issue. Bravo!
2) Sorry that was long, I know a few of you hate to read.

[Raptor on 03.06.05 at 10:48]

Eric: You write, "...you quickly hit a point of 'rights which benefit me, good; all else, bad.' This is worrisome since it is reminiscent of borderline personality among other things, which isn't terribly logical - not to mention that it reeks of Animal Farm."

Borderline personality? This is either a new low, or a new high in humour for the blog!!! I think you meant that post for the Weekend Caption!

[m on 03.06.05 at 10:54]

i vote new high!

[tong on 03.06.05 at 10:58]

Eric,
I agree debate is good.
I guess the notion of further governmental involvement would sway me to the side of not allowing the ban. I think that North American culture (which we are undeniably influenced by)in particular is becoming progressively more and more P.C. and controlled and yes we should be able to do what we want when and where we want.

So I must say no to the ban,

yes maybe to notions like a ban on advertising and sponsorship by tobacco companies. This way you might slow down growth of the new smokers. As some comedian said (Bill Mayer maybe) Tobacco companies are marketing geniuses, they have ads that now warn how bad smoking is and give you advice on how to quit and yet people still buy them, Imagine of they used their power for good!

[CB on 03.06.05 at 11:31]

Phil,

The last several meals I had out I deliberately went to either no smoking restaurants, or no smoking sections. Luckily I was away on business this week in the US where it is almost impossible to smoke in doors.

However, the point I was trying to make is that everyone realises the danger of carbon monoxide and therefore nobody would ever allow a gas motor inside a building. However, the same does not apply to ciggie smoke. people don't see it as such a danger. It is !!

Now I believe in time, whether a law is passed or not, smoking will become banned in doors everywhere the public goes. Yes, even Docksider will eventually ban it. It will become publically unacceptable to spew smoke even inside the worst joint in town. This could take years though and I may be too old to go out drinking.

Passing the law would hurry things up.

Anyone going to happy hour tonite??

[Steve Moffat on 03.06.05 at 11:58]

I am a smoker, I don't have any issues about a smoking ban, however, I believe that there are other more pressing smoke related issues that need to be dealt with first.

Black diesel smoke.....just about every truck & taxi I have the misfortune to be behind, belches out the most disgusting black coud of poisonous fumes / smoke. This would be illegal in a lot of countries. Takes 20 minutes to fix.

Is there no legislation concerning that?? If there is, then why is it not enforced?

What about all the cars with that telltale blue trail behind them.

There are far more respitory diseases available to the rush hour commuter here in BDA than there are available in public places that allow cigarette smoking.

I for one would like to see the government take action on that as well as cigarette smoke.

As to smoking on planes,the reason that there is no smoking on planes has nothing to do with being courteous to the non smoker. It's cheaper to clean the recirculated air in planes if there is no smoke involved. It's not a safety issue either.

[Eric on 03.06.05 at 12:11]

Nicotine itself isn't particularly harmful stuff (in small and regulated doses - in larger "all at once" doses it gives you a heart attack and pulmonary arrest). The rest of the stuff in the cigarette is what is harmful. There is tar in there and tobbacco as a plant is extremely good at pulling heavy metals out of the soil in the ground where it is planted and retaining it in its plant matter. These attributes help the tobacco plant kill off insects which would otherwise feed on it.
And then there are the other documented chemicals in the cigarretes either there from the tabbaco plant, from sprays used on the plant, or in some cases added specifiacally by the production company.

There have been multiple studies which show that lower nicotine levels induce a person to smoke more. That is because a smoker's brain doesn't want to smoke a cigarette, it wants to take in a specific quantity of nicotine and then derive the associated benefits from that (largely dopamine changes - as with any addictive substance). So if a cigarette is high in nicotine, then smokers have fewer of them. If it is low, they have more of them. The net result is the same amount of nicotine - but the greater number of cigarettes does more damage to the lungs of the smoker than does the smaller number.
This damage is done over time and is only significant in the short term if the smoker has asthma or is specifically allergic to the smoke. The smoke does kill off the cells in the lung tissue and that increased cell turnover is what leads to an increase in the chances of cancer (as do some of the chemicals being inhaled).

Carbon monoxide is one of the gasses inhaled during smoking - but non-smokers should be thankful to smokers for filtering most of that out. Hemoglobin has a higher affinity for carbon monoxide than it does for oxygen, so it is extremlely efficient at pulling it out of the air in the lungs and it keeps it there for a long time (but over time it will release from the bond, but we are talking in terms of a week or two). When the smoke is exhaled, the cloud you see/smell is that of the burned plant matter and much of the poisonous gasses/debris (and the nicotine) has been filtered out by the original smoker's lungs. What is left is the charred plant matter.

[Eric on 03.06.05 at 12:13]

Sorry, I was so long-winded that it cut me off!

Continuing...

So clearly the cigarettes are the problem here, not the nicotine. The smoke from it bothers others and that is the point we are seeing here. So perhaps, if we are going to venture forth and decide that personal accountability and decision making is too hard for us to manage on our own - so we need someone to take care of that for us (government in this case), we could also make money off of it?
Don't just outright ban it, since that is an affront to personal liberties and crazy people like myself who value such freedoms get all up in arms. Instead, tax cigarettes so that they are prohibitively expensive and are therefore not the most desirable way to get nicotine. Then lower the cost of non-smoking delivery methods, such as gum or the patch (although the gum doesn't really work, it delivers the nicotine too quickly and makes most people vomit - which is even more unpleasant in a restaurant than smoke is).
That way people are still free to choose what delivery mechanism they want, but the mechanism which is more expensive (both in terms that it has been taxed and so the price is high, but also in that some raise arguments that smokers cost us all more in the health insurance) should follow an economic principle we are all familiar with - and make the community money as a result.

On a side note, there have been studies that show people who have brain/mood disorders that are dopamine related are far more likely to smoke. This is because nicotine increases dopamine levels in the brain by inhibiting the enzyme that removes dopamine from the system. Much in the way that Prozac and Zoloft increase serotonin levels in the brain by inhibiting reuptake, but with a different hormone pathway in this case.
There are arguments made (their validity is left to that of the reader I guess) that if smoking is banned, then these people can no longer self medicate and you see an increase in these disorders in the population which were previously self controlling themselves.

Like I said before, I am all for the positive benefits of smoke free environments, but perhaps there are methods of reaching the same ends without needing the government to try to enforce a ban on them. Governments have shown that they are much better at taxation than they are on enforcement of anti-drug laws.

While we are discussing this, how about adding in some finer points to bounce around? For instance, smokers take 20-50 years of constant exposure to eventually get sick enough from smoking to then die from it. If they stop before that point, their bodies are extremely efficient at recovering from the damage done. So what about things which kill far more people and are much more immediate – like car accidents or poor diets?
Should the government step in and not allow us to drive, or dictate what foods we can eat? Obese people are far more likely to get adult onset diabetes and therefore they are a strain on the health insurance industry far more than any smokers (I see fat people walking around far more than I see smokers – and nobody will ever walk up to a fat person and ask them to stop eating, but they will do so or at least grumble about a smoker).