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

[Ron Lacey on 03.06.05 at 12:30]

For the first time in 30 years of vacationing in Bermuda, I realized that there are some things better in New York. I have been spoiled. Last November while dining at the Pickled Onion, the patron at the next table lit up a cigarette. The smoke naturally blew right into my face. I could not enjoy my meal. Thank God I don't have to deal with that here any more. I agree that the government should not have to protect me from myself, but I have no authority over the guy at the next table. So do I have to find another place to eat? Since it is my wife's favorite restaurant, why does she have to eat somewhere else? And remember "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 12:49]

Good comments Mr. Lacey. The only problem I have with your summation is, at least the filtering system in a pool is better than the ones in a Resturant/Bar etc. Just depends which pool you choose or as previous sentence.

[PackingHeat on 03.06.05 at 14:02]

In response to Mr. Lacey's comment: while I also do not enjoy cigarette smoke, especially while eating, I don't believe outright bans are appropriate. I'd like to expand upon Eric's comments about "personal responsibility" and apply it to the situation you and your wife found yourself in at the restaurant.

Question: did you ask the person who was smoking if they would mind delaying their smoking until you had finished your meal? Obviously, a conscientious smoker would have asked first, but due to the lack of that courtesy did you make an effort to request that your fellow patron not smoke while you were eating? You may not have "authority" over the person at the next table, but there's no reason that two, reasonable people can't work out the situation between themselves.

Why must we rely on the government to make our decisions for us and exercise this "authority" that you feel you lack?

The challenge of living in a free society is accepting the fact that our rights and the rights of others may not always be complementary, but should still be respected. If we cede all our decision making power to the government and let them decide what's "best for us", we eventually end up losing all control over our lives and our personal choices. You may say "but it's only smoking, which is a nasty habit anyway", but setting these kinds of precedents is dangerous. What's next? Alcohol? Fatty foods? Cars that can exceed the speed limit? Pointy kitchen knives (like the ones doctors are trying to get banned in Great Britain)? To use the cliche: it's a slippery slope.

Wouldn't we all be far better served trying to work out these problems amongst ourselves instead of giving decision making power to the government? Obviously, there are jerks out there who don't give a crap, but I think you'll find that most smokers will extinguish their cigarette when asked politely.

Finally, it should be up to the business to decide what policies to set in their establishment. Some may want to cater to smokers, others may want only non-smokers. Some may set up smoker's areas with strong filtration and physical barriers between sections and cater to both. The business should decide, not the government. Your money (based on your decision where to eat) will help those business make their choices.

[CB on 03.06.05 at 14:21]

Sorry Packing Heat but I don't buy it. You compare smoking to pointy knives. Pointy knives don't affect me unless you stab me with them. Non of the other things do either.

Why should it come down to me asking some inconsiderate A**hole to put out his ciggie. By that time, the damage is done.

If I walked into a bar with 2 cans of Raid and let them loose everywhere - people would be up in arms - they'd understand how unacceptable it is. Compare that to smoking instead of your pathetic analogies.

[PackingHeat on 03.06.05 at 14:29]

Just for clarification CB, I wasn't comparing smoking to pointy knives, I was commenting on what else the government might try to ban in "our best interests". The point being that if we don't take responsibility for our own actions and allow the government to make our choices for us, we can quickly lose all our freedoms, not just the ones you or I find unimportant.

Again, my post was not pro or anti smoking, my post was pro-freedom, pro-personal responsibility and pro-business.

[Eric on 03.06.05 at 14:40]

If I walked into a bar with 2 cans of Raid and let them loose everywhere - people would be up in arms - they'd understand how unacceptable it is. Compare that to smoking instead of your pathetic analogies.

CB, I totally agree with you on that. I think someone spraying Raid in a restaurant is crazy. Much in a similar manner, someone smoking next to me is something I consider unpleasant.

Were I to start spraying cans of Raid next to you while you were out eating, would you turn to me and ask me to stop? If I told you were to shove your comment, would you then approach the owner of the establishment and state your concern?

Personally, I think I would say something to both the person and the owner if someone was spraying Raid near my food.

But I think the number of people who will say something to a smoker is much lower since there is a social acceptability to smoking carried over from years of advertising and social usage.

Does that mean that governement should step in and ban Raid in a restaurant? To me, I would say no - and we already know how I feel about the smoking ban in public.

Prior to living in Bermuda with my wife, we lived in Boston and they recently created a non-smoking law. Mass is notorious for too much government involvement and therefore high taxes - so while I am perfectly fine with the lack of smoke out at the bars - I am still not sure that I needed government to help me out there.
I was already going to bars and restaurants that were less smokey (or not at all) and using the power of money to voice my concern.

[CB on 03.06.05 at 14:40]

Packing Heat: You used Pointy Knives in the same paragraph. Why even mention them if there is no direct comparison? I take your point (Ok that was a pun - and a bad one) but all the other items don't affect me unless there is some specific action. Therefore banning Smoking Is different - and is necessary.

If not then why ban anything? Why have a driving age, or drinking age? Why make certain drug illegal at all? Surely you are correct we can make up our own minds. Why have any laws at all?

[tong on 03.06.05 at 14:43]

The seatbelt law was one law that i thought was rammed down our throats...
The smoking is a tough one though as it does affect other people directly, and it is very harmful to people that do smoke. I have been to non smoking bars in Ireland, and Canada and they are definitely a nicer experience. I guess the heart of the issue is the health and comfort of the majority/versus too much uninvited governmental control.

Maybe instead of instituting a law govt could give some incentive to the individual establishments to ban smoking. That way it is a choice made and they govt has done what it felt was the right thing but allowed the will of the people to be the determining factor.

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 14:44]

CB, I said prior that I would not respond but after reading your last Post(to put it mildly), Remember the two stroke engine in the Resturant?

I dare say you would have more problems than people up in arms. If I were there, you would be restrained, we would call the people with White coats. If we could find a cop he would probabley assist us. Talk about ANALOGIES.

I have to go, my wife is in the powder room spraying her hair with raid. Damn, I can only do so much. Better put my ciggie out first, could be one hell of a BANG.

[CB on 03.06.05 at 15:07]

Thank you Terry. You just proved my point. The 2 stroke engine and the Raid were the most direct examples I could ever have given. Even you have now admitted I would be restrained because it would be so unnacceptable in an enclosed space.

But smoking apparently, in your small mind anyway, should be allowed.

....and why are all cigarettes white I'd like to know? Can't we have some black ones or are all the manufacturers racist?

OK its a joke! Its Friday afternoon for Crissake!
I'm off to Crocodile Rock.

Before you ask: Yeah, I'll put up with it I suppose.

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 15:22]

Thanks CB. I do have a small mind, better than inflated ego.

Cigarettes are white because they resemble a more neutral background. It's better to see the White (light) than the Dark Side. Next week, I will, with the Limeys permission put up a comment/Post that deals with the 1920-50's responce to Horse droppings and the effect it had on neighbours, transport etc. No person screamed about it then, they just walked around it.
It's personal choice to smoke and I do my best to do what is right to help, not hinder my fellow man. When I go out to eat, I expect a meal. When I smoke, it's for my nicotine habit. I just use my common sense, small mind but common sense. I try my best and do adhere to rules and regs.etc.

Have a good time a crocky island. I would rather be there then have to listen and be surrounded by a load of crock.......

[CB on 03.06.05 at 15:31]

Sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words, unlike ciggie smoke, connot hurt me.

Incidentally, in the 20's there was no tarmac on the roads so horse waste filtered into the soft ground. It only became a problem after roads were surfaced basically making them water proof.

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 15:40]

CB, you are correct on ciggie part. Come to my house for dinner,tea. It's clean, it's smoke free. Only problem, don't, well you can bring your bathing suit but you will have to do ins and outs in the pool. Those buses will get you. I live next to a Bus Stop, very nice place, then again, who am I to comment on such an important issue. Common sense. I got you CB.

[Eric on 03.06.05 at 15:41]

As for the white cigarette joke, I don't smoke, but I think I recall seeing dark brown cigarettes for sale when I was a kid. I haven't even looked at cigarettes since then, so perhaps they don't exist any more.

What about clove cigarettes? Those smell more pleasant, but the oil from those is supposedly harder on your lungs in fewer cigarettes. If everyone smoked those, so things smelled less offensive, would there be less desire to ban them?

If it is an odor thing, can we ask government to step in and make showers and deoderant mandatory too? Being around people, especially when I am trying to enjoy my right to a good meal, and if someone near me smells like they have not showered is really offputting.

Who would enforce the bans on these by the way? Would it be during the normal (and necessary, I agree) food inspections? Would the police be involved the way they would if there were an alcohol or drug violation? Who pays for the additional work done by whoever it is that enforces this? What about the additional paperwork generated by tracking who is not complying?

Or would it be more lip service and nothing would really be done about such a "ban" and everyone would wink and nod and know that they could head on down to SoAndSo to smoke away no problem?

Or would the ban allow restaurant owners who were already inclined to go smoke-free an easy out and instead of telling the smoking clients that they can no longer do so and face their potential frustration/anger, they can instead shrug their shoulders and merely state that they are following the law?

Clearly there are plenty of concerned citizens who feel that such a ban is necessary. Instead of government stepping in to deal with it - what if those concerned citizens "took back the streets" so to speak and went and spoke to the restaurants they were most concerned about.
As a one on one basis, it might not get far. But if enough people do it - even en masse, then perhaps that would solve the issue right there - act with your voice and show that you don't need government to think/act for you.

After all, government has already shown in the past that they aren't particularly great at getting things done well/quickly/fast/efficiently. Perhaps the general public, who are the ones who supposedly care anyway, should take on the responsibility on this one?

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 15:51]

Eric, May I call you that? Smoking in a Bar or Rest.? What has that got to do with my deodorant? If we stink, we usually go to the park bench and have a fag. I would have no family and friends if I fell under your discription. Plus Managment would sit me somewhere else, or,or,or,or.

You know what, I am going outside and have a ciggie, come back and have a bath, then go to MR Onions/Square one. Will they then complain because I smell of Pasta/ Beer/ Garlic?

See Ya.

[Eric on 03.06.05 at 16:02]

How DARE you call me by my name! :)

As for your deodorant, I was merely interested in what else was open to banning and regulation. Since many on here clearly think banning smoking in public is the way to go, I just wanted to ask clearly and specifically what was the most offensive part of cig smoking in public. Once we have determined what the offensive part is, then we could then determine what (if anything) is also offensive in the same way - and then go about banning our way to a better tomorrow.

If you are trying to stand in my way of a better tomorrow, then you sir are not with me, but against me.
As an American myself, I think that means I now have to declare war on you.

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 16:12]

Eric, you silly man/woman. How dare you declare War on yourself? Where did you get the notion that I, Terry, Smoker of the Universe was AMERICAN. Read between the lines I guess means fill them in.
I AM AN ONION.Transplanted. Have to leave now, got to go(leave the site) have to plant some seeds.

I read Jeffers comments on smoking. No.1.

Crock rock here I come. Wish Tiger was here, they would put you in your place/smoking/nonsmoking.

[CB on 03.06.05 at 16:35]

Guys, I'm off to the Annex to get a pack, no a carton of Marlboro, make my way to the smokiest bar in tarn and light up.

May as well join you lot - can't beat u.

: - )

[Terry on 03.06.05 at 16:46]

Got Ya CB. Have a good one. Cough.Iet.Buwa.

[The Limey on 03.06.05 at 17:45]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to everyone...

TJL

Having to make cost-benefit analyses is an unavoidable part of life. I'd like to take a year off to travel around the world, but is it worth the loss of income and potential damage to my career? I want a plasma TV but can I justify the cost? I hate my job, but the pay is great - can I afford to quit? It is not the Government's job to think for you.

I don't really believe in a minimum wage or mandatory healthcare, either, since you ask. The market is perfectly capable of determining the former and I think it should be your choice whether you want to take out health insurance or not. If there are individuals who cannot afford this, that's a different matter. But if you can afford it, and are stupid enough not to take it, then don't come to me for sympathy.

Raptor

Are you arguing for a complete ban on smoking? Banning smoking in public places won't stop people smoking in their homes, and so will not stop them dying any younger, nor do anything to lower your health premiums (if indeed smoking does add to them).

As for the numbers Jonathan provided, they're not surprising, but they tell you nothing about the effect smoking has on the total Medicare bill, which is what is really important.

I'll use simple numbers to make the math easier. Suppose today you have 4 non-smokers and 1 smoker in Medicare. Suppose another 2 smokers die of smoking-related illnesses before they reached 65. Total cost of Medicare: $21,708. Now imagine cigarettes do not exist. Now you have 7 non-smokers in Medicare (the original 4 non-smokers, plus the smoker, plus the two who died in the previous scenario but have now made it to 65 thanks to the absence of tobacco in their lives). Total cost of the program: $26,873.

Obviously this is a simplistic analysis. And obviously the difference between those figures will vary as you adjust the proportion of smokers who live to 65 to those who die before then. But what I'm trying to show is that just because it costs more to look after a smoker in Medicare than a non-smoker does not mean that the Medicare program costs the US more than it would if smoking did not exist.

As for my cigar "habit", I smoke about one a year, if that.

CB

If you can't name me three recent instances when you've had a meal disrupted by smoke surely this issue is not the cataclysmic infringement on your human rights that your comments would seem to suggest? You accept that the market is pushing bars and restaurants in the direction of smoking bans anyway.

Ron

PackingHeat summed it up well. If you were bothered by the smoke, why not speak to the smoker about it yourself? Surely no need to get the Government involved?

Moreover, why is Pickled Onion your wife's favourite restaurant if she hates the smoke so much? To me, that's like saying Xxx would be my favourite restaurant if their food wasn't so bad.

Enough seriousness. It's Friday night. Time to go for a meal and a drink in a smoky bar! ;-)

[TJL on 03.06.05 at 18:19]

Thanks for responding. I've now got a better idea of where the area of disagreement between us lies:

1) Surely you appreciate that the trivial cost-benefit analyses you have outlined (your current job vs. travel/a tv/higher wages) are a poor, poor analogy to someone who is forced to decide between taking a job that will significantly shorten their life and not earning a wage at all. If you do not, then I fear that your lack of empathy for your fellow man will be the first time I have ever felt anything but the highest respect for you and your opinions. Again, for the record, I don't claim that this is the position all restaurant staff find themselves in, but if ANY do, that is too many for me.

2) Regarding the minimum wage, you appear to be in favour of a more capitalist society than I. Fair enough, it's a matter of opinion.

3) You are unclear/unstated on what to do about individuals who cannot afford healthcare because of their low wages ("that's a different matter" isn't illuminating) or whether legistlation preventing an employer from sexually exploiting their employee is justified. I'm sorry to keep harping back to these issues, but in my opinion they are critical to our disagreement - either you appreciate that there are instances where the government ought to intervene on behalf of all employees to protect them from exploitation (and we can then discuss whether provision of clean air is one of those instances), or you endorse a society where an employer can demand horrific things of their employee on the grounds of defending the free market.

[CB on 03.06.05 at 20:29]

Limey,

Why should it be three instances where my MEAL was disrupted by smoke? Does eating my dinner really constitute a part of this argument??

What about when I go to a pub and have a beer?
You obviously think I should give up my clear air rights because I am not eating and like beer.

[Raptor on 03.06.05 at 22:40]

Limey: I’m actually not big on outlawing things, but sometimes it’s appropriate. I do believe people should not have to encounter smoking in environments where choice is usually not possible—offices, aircraft, restaurants, and bars. I know some people have to smoke, and some people deeply enjoy smoking and have long-term habits of doing so. I’m sympathetic. I could envision a “smoking bar” or two for that purpose. So, really it’s a matter of separation—a significant but partial ban (probably not likely to happen). My first choice, however, would be no smoking indoors where the public is present, as well as some outdoor public events where someone might be seated next to a smoker.

Certainly, banning smoking in public establishments will not stop people smoking in their homes. There has been, however, considerable progress in knowledge about the effects of smoking. I can only hope that grows and reaches more young people. My grandfather rolled his own, and physicians back then said it was healthy. That attitude carried forward for a couple of generations. But now, whether we like it or not, we are making decisions about whether or not to smoke in the context of a greatly increased body of knowledge. Understanding health effects more clearly, I know numbers of people who gave up smoking when or before they had children, for instance, because they did not want to pass on the habit.

I tossed in Jonathan’s figures on Medicare because they were handy. Okay, with regard to financial costs, here are some figures from the Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin Medical School, on working-age people. I’ll try to keep it brief:

“Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death each year in the U.S., claiming more than 440,000 lives each year. That’s more than the combined death rates for AIDS, drugs, alcohol, homicide, suicide, and motor vehicle accidents, according to the Center for Disease Control. According to the American Cancer Society, a study of health care utilization in 20,381 employees…showed [those] who smoked had more hospital admissions per 1,000 (124 vs 76), had a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs 5.03 days), and made six more visits to health care facilities per year than nonsmoking employees (7). Careless smoking is the nation’s leading cause of fire death, according to the U.S. Fire Administration. According to a healthcare actuarial study, if a health plan had no smokers, estimated savings would be approximately $1.3 million per year per 10,000 smokers. Smokers add approximately 7% to the total cost of healthcare. Individual smokers average 31% higher healthcare costs than nonsmokers. Businesses pay an average of $1238 more in workers’ compensation costs per smoker per year. Healthcare costs of continuing smokers dramatically increase over time. The CDC estimates each smoker incurs $1,623 a year in excess medical expenditures. Secondhand smoke’s effects can add up to [an additional] $490 per smoker per year. The CDC estimates the average annual healthcare costs related to smoking in Wisconsin to be $1.5 billion. Wisconsin businesses lose an additional $1.4 billion in worker productivity each year due to sickness and premature death caused by smoking. All told, smoking costs Wisconsin almost $3 billion per year.”

That's just Wisconsin--one state. And those are just dollar amounts--nothing to do with loss and grief and missing wage earners.

[The Limey on 04.06.05 at 00:09]

TJL

I don't believe anyone is forced to decide between taking a job that will significantly shorten their life and not earning a wage at all.

Those who can't afford health insurance should be provided for in some way. I'd be happy to discuss exactly how in another thread. But that's not what this one is about. You ask whether Government should compel companies to provide health insurance for all their employees and I say probably not, because many of those employees are capable of obtaining that for themselves.

Are there cases where the Government should intervene to protect its employees from exploitation? Of course. But managers of bars and restaurants are not exploiting their staff. The staff know before they take the job that it will involve working in a smoky environment. If I knew that my would-be boss was going to sexually exploit me once I signed my contract, would I take the job? Of course not. Exploitation is an unforseeable situation that develops after someone has taken a job. Exposure to second-hand smoke does not fall into that category.

[Terry on 04.06.05 at 13:40]

Having just read Mr. Barritts letter to the editor, I must agree to some extent that Government should not make Legislation re smoking. You will always find a Bar/Resturant that allows it, and others that prohibit it. Someone made a comment about smoking in your own house. Well, thats great. As stated before, I do smoke a lot. My wife says for health reasons and clenliness I should stop doing this. I was really pissed at first, then I thought about it.
Hell you smoked for 15yrs! NOw you want to tell me what to do!

Example:- Smoke in your living room for a few days. Go an clean the TV screen and see all that yellowy brown crap that comes off with the windex and the paper towell. I don't know all the in's and out's of it but it has to do with static. I finally agreed that I was an ass and not looking out for other's welfare, that being my Wife's.

In conclusion, it boils down to thinking about the welfare of others, plus your own.

I choose and chose the route I have taken but if I can contribute to a better life for others, Dam, I will sure give it a shot. Thats what's lacking in our society today. Respect for our fellow Man.

The old saying "respect is earned". Earned! Knowone pays me for it. It's cheap, it's free, lets give it out to our neighbours. If they don't return it, they will not get their deposit back.

[Jonathan on 04.06.05 at 18:21]

The study cites that the incremental cost to Medicare of providing health services to smokers (in 1993) was $14.2 billion.

[Terry on 04.06.05 at 19:39]

OK. Jonathan, you win. So we will continue to pay for Kidney disease, heart trouble, Diabetes, knee replacements, all cardio extremes. So the smokers are DEAD. What are you gonna bitch and mone/moin about next.

Male transplants?

?

[J Galt on 05.06.05 at 10:09]

"Are there cases where the Government should intervene to protect its employees from exploitation?"

Yes, it should intervene in response to an initiation of force or attempt to initiates force on an individual or individuals. It should never be the one that initiates force on individuals.

[Terry on 05.06.05 at 11:43]

J Galt, I had to read your Post five times. I am getting a little old ya know. Excellant description of what, where, and when.

[TJL on 05.06.05 at 18:28]

It seems that both The Limey and J Galt feel that "exploitation" (at least, the objectionable exploitation which the government should prevent) only occurs when an employee is made to work in conditions not disclosed at the moment of employment. That is, if an employer is up front about the fact that they will pay near-to-nothing wages, provide no health insurance, expose the employee to lethal pollutants and possibly require a blow job before they give out the next paycheck, AND the employee is still so desperate for money that they will endure these working conditions in order to survive, then that is acceptable and the government is not justified in intervening. I happen to disagree, but such is life.

Pre-emptively (and perhaps unnecessarily) I would like to head off the impending objection that this is an over-dramatization of real life, and that no-body really finds themselves in such a position - anyone who has ever picked up a Dickens' novel will appreciate that the above is a fairly accurate portrayal of Victorian England, before society decided that there were some excesses of the free market that we were just not prepared to allow.

[Terry on 05.06.05 at 18:59]

Welcome back to Victorian England! The only problem I see so far, to date, is the Wigs have been replaced by Afro's. This has been pre-emtively portrayed with shorter hair and fuses.
Comments to say, 30-50 bloggers and opinionated people will not change this. JUst reading your comments lets me know you ain't no dummy,and you don't work at bla bla bla Bar/rest.

If you feel that a change is due, do something within the community and make or try to make changes. Your voice will be heard louder if you challenge or talk to 30,000 people, so called voters, than it will tyring to convince 50 Posters/blogers.

The People put Government there, not the Victorian ding dongs.

[J Galt on 05.06.05 at 23:13]

"if an employer is up front about the fact that they will pay near-to-nothing wages, provide no health insurance, expose the employee to lethal pollutants and possibly require a blow job before they give out the next paycheck, AND the employee is still so desperate for money that they will endure these working conditions in order to survive, then that is acceptable and the government is not justified in intervening."

Yes exactly, If two rational adults can reach an agreement, and both agree on the terms, then government is not justified in intervening.

It's not government’s job to legislate morality. Take a porn star, they agree to the terms before hand and a blowjob is just one of the many things they will perform for their employer, is its government's job to step in and deny these women or men their lively hood? You want to paint all workers as victims or oppressed and that is simply not the case.

[TJL on 06.06.05 at 06:51]

And you want to pretend that non are - how very convenient for you.

[Terry on 06.06.05 at 08:18]

Government should 'BUTT' out. Reminds me of my vows, 'for better, for worse'. It was my choice to put myself into that/this position.

Some Posters seem to be reaching a conclusion before doing research, then simply dismissing anything contrary to their preconceived notions.
Just messed up a good quote but it makes sense to me.

[CB on 06.06.05 at 10:19]

I particularly like the comparison with the porn star.

[J Galt on 06.06.05 at 10:25]

TLJ,

That isn't true, There are victims and there are victimizers, you are a victim when there is an initiation of force used against you. In this case the government is using force to tell the owner that they can not serve smokers. Its that simple. The owner doesn't force the staff to work at the resturant, they both agree to the terms, working environment, hours, wages, etc...

If there is a shortage of workers they can demand more for their time, (does this make the employer a victim, of course not) if there is an abundance then the employer will parlay in his favor, the market sets the price it is willing to bear.

So you see TLJ its not the blowjob thats a crime its if you use force to get one, think about that as the government pulls down its zipper and gets ready to force the resturant and bar owners to ban smokers.

Its going to leave a funny taste in everyone's mouths.

[CB on 06.06.05 at 10:36]

It certainly will be a lot to swallow.

[TJL on 06.06.05 at 10:54]

J Galt,
Nobody is forceing the bar owner not serve smokers. Bar owners are rational adults and can make the cost-benefit analysis between allowing smoking in their bar and going to jail.

I imagine you are outraged by my suggestion that the bar owner having to choose between jail and serving his patrons is a fair choice which he or she should have to make as a rational individual - and if so, you can now imagine MY outrage at your suggestion that an individual forced to decide between starving/eviction and slowly poisoning themselves is confronted with a free choice.

We've entered choppy philosophical waters here, discussing the nature of free will. Do I still have a choice if there's a gun to my head? Is "Your money or your life" a fair choice? Can an individual be said to be rational when under extreme duress (such as when their lives or those of their loved ones are at stake)? I'd really rather not steer us down this road, so until you convince me a return to Victorian England, complete with a laissez-faire stance on workplace legislation by the government, would be preferrable to the world we live in now, I'm afraid you will be unable to convince me that employees should be subjected to second-hand smoke, voluntarily or otherwise.

[Fart Smeller on 06.06.05 at 11:31]

TJL,
All I have to say is...they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. Perhaps I should only fish in water 2 feet deep as deep sea fishing has the potential to shorten the life span of my employees. While I'm at it, maybe I should run on solar power to protect them from carcinogenic emissions from diesel engines.

You are attempting to justify stripping one person's rights to protect another person who has a choice and has agreed to the current terms. Why interfere? Because YOU don't like smoke? Open your own bar.

[J Galt on 06.06.05 at 11:36]

"Do I still have a choice if there's a gun to my head?"

No you do not have free choice. Force is being used on you.

But the employer doesn't put a gun to the employee's head, the fact of the matter is we all need food or shelter. This drives us to work to earn our way. But does my need because it is greater entitle me to that which you have worked for. Of course not, you yourself accept your salary based on what you earn not what you need. Because I have 5 children and you have none, should I get paid more than you for the same work?? My need is greater, am I not the victim here, shouldn't you have to work for less so my children don't go hungry.

No I should not force you to work for less and I should not force the bar owner to be non-smoking because I need to pay for food or shelter. We shall meet as rational adults (neither using force) and come to an agreement on the terms of employment. If not we shall go our own way, neither owing the other a thing and no need for government to force a decsion on us.

The smoking ban is others forcing their will on individuals, try and paint it any other way it is still morally wrong. You can not justify this thing you do, no more than a rapist can justify his act, We do it to protect you, we do it for the majority, we do it for victims, we do it for the needy. It is still rape. It is a crime and it is sicken me to no end, the depths you will sink, the lenghts you will go to justify your irrational acts.

[TJL on 06.06.05 at 11:47]

Comparing a smoking ban to rape - don't ever accuse me of going to excessive lengths to make a case when you submit statements like that.

[CB on 06.06.05 at 12:04]

I suspect the Governemt made rape illegal to protect innocent victims. Passing a no smoking law will do exactly the same.

2 sides to everything JG.

[Longtime Lurker on 06.06.05 at 12:29]

I've been pretty much staying out of this one - for the most part, TJL has been saying what I've been thinking.

Galt, I've been wondering... do you think that it is possible for one person to exploit another, when they are both rational adults entering into an agreement (assuming both parties have perfect knowledge)? I think that this might be the heart of the matter. If it is possible, then it may be necessary to legislate some protections for employees (or customers, for that matter). Such laws would be unnecessary if the exploitation is not possible.

The example of Victorian England was brought up earlier - do you consider anything wrong or exploitive in the employer-employee relations of this period? If so, what was wrong, and how should it have been solved without the use of force?

[H Reardon on 06.06.05 at 12:31]

nice post, John.

[ruby tuesday on 06.06.05 at 12:49]

Galty - you choose to leave the public sidewalk and enter the bar, you also choose to leave the state of nature and enter civil society.

I think its time you moved on from the chocolate box aphorisms of Rand and the Heritage Foundation and tried your hand at some grown up philosophy. I still have some dog eared copies of The Tractacus from my PhD days if you'd like them.

Much love my dear.

Ruby

[Marlboro Man on 06.06.05 at 12:56]

Personally, I think it should be up to the individual bar owners.

[Terry on 06.06.05 at 13:24]

Dam. If I choose to leave the sidealk, and go to Civil Society, well it's free. The pollution that drove me from the street into the Bar, My taxes paid for. Atleast the Ciggy smoke is free, and it's MY Choice.

[J Galt on 06.06.05 at 13:57]

"Comparing a smoking ban to rape"

Its the use of force that make both wrong, sex between to consenting rational adults is not wrong and is nobodys business except the two involved. It's when you force your will on another party that it becomes a crime, in this case we call it rape. Its the use of force that makes it a crime.

"I suspect the Governemt made rape illegal to protect innocent victims."

Yes a just law protecting all individuals from others using force against them.

"Passing a no smoking law will do exactly the same."

Incorrect passing a smoking law is the government using force against, individuals, not protecting them from it. There in it is morally wrong.

[Eric on 06.06.05 at 14:12]

"Choices always were a problem for you. What you need is someone strong to guide you." (too bad that quote is merely a song lyric and not that of some influential political mind, because it well suits this *argument*)

Many of you are adamantly stating that you want the ban on smoking and you are getting up in arms at those who don't want government to do it.

The points you are raising as to why this ban should be in place are largely to that of a ban on all smoking, as opposed to that of a ban on smoking in public (if the smoking ban in public is in place, nobody quits smoking, they just don't do it near you - so they go home, they still smoke, they still die, you still pay for their Medicare - if you are going to use that as your leverage, it fails on that point).

So that leaves the other side of it - you don't want to be around smoke. I don't blame you - I too don't want to be around it.
But what I am saying is "Approach the bars/restaurants and specifically their owners, and request that they go smoke free."
What you are saying is "I want government to speak for ME and ban it - I don't want government to speak for YOU because I don't agree with YOU."

For those of you bringing up rape on either side of this argument, that is probably a bad call. Rape is when someone forces themselves on you and you have no control in the situation.
If you are in a bar and there is smoke, you have all of the control in the world to get out of that situation.
The key difference there is that you have free will and full choice to extricate yourself from the latter, and you have the full ability to try to avoid that in the future through many different avenues.
To skip all of those avenues and immediate request the government to do it for you is probably the easiest way out - after all that way you don't have to do any work at all. You don't have to think, you don't have to confront anyone, you don't have to suffer any downside at all - you just get what YOU want. How great is that?