fascism at it's finest
Well, the ban on smoking in public places will go into effect Jan 9th
In Columbia. This momentous decision was decided by 7 people on the city council. 4 voted yes. I, as a smoker, am royally pissed. No more smoking in a bowling alley, pool hall, bar, concert, restaurant, anywhere. There, vented. What really bothers me are two things: First, an outright ban is nuts. What's wrong with giving business owners a choice. I thought America was about freedom of choice. If businesses wanted to go non-smoking, they would. Some here in Columbia already have...which is fine. I still will frequent these places. Also, people have a choice where they work, so employee health isn't reason enough. Neither is customer health, as they have a choice too. I feel like this is prohibition all over again. Secondly, I think that this is something that should be decided by public vote, not by council. After all, whom is going to be affected the most by the outcome....the public of several thousand, or the council of 7. This is probably a moot point, as the vote probably would have been a yes for the ban anyway. Still, would've been nice to have a voice.
posted by jason @ 3:05 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Now we're finally catching up with Lawrence, KS! Didn't they already do this? I'd be curious to read studies on the effects on a town the size of Columbia. How does it affect tourism, commerce, etc.?
I think the only exception to the ban is that places with an outdoor patio may choose to allow a smoking section outside.
Another reason to pay attention to local politics. They don't do much, but they get to decide things like this for us. As a non smoker who has a direct physical reaction to smoke, part of this is kind of a relief to me to not to have to deal with it. However, I do not like the infringement on personal choice and the direction that leads us in. It's not going to make people quit, either. They'll stand outside in the freezing cold or just stay home.
~Jade
i agree.
Colorado went 'smoke free' in July.
Sad, sad day for me.
I was listening to a radio program on Colorado - and they had 2 opposing sides -
Some guy who wanted the ban overturned (he owned a dive that had NO other income other than booze - i.e. no food, or patio)
and some lady who helped put the ban on the ballot.
Unfortunatley, Colorado DID have a statewide public vote, and it passes.
But as the debate went on, all this lady could defend the smoking ban is that it will be better if the patrons of these types of bars would go home after 1 drink, instead of staying all night smoking. She commented on the health of the barmaids, etc, like Jason said. The bar owner retorted that because his bar was 'smoke free' and everyone decided to go to the bar and grill down the street with a patio, he had to let his barmaid go!
I think people are missing the easy solution - which is propelled by Jason's arguments. Choice.
You choose where you want to go, who you want to serve, and where you want to work.
I don't understand why people are waiting for the governments to make these decisions FOR them, when they could make these choices themselves - just like choosing TO or NOT TO smoke.
there. my rant.
and Jade - I completely agree. A smoking ban isn't going to make someone quit smoking. They are just going to stay at home!
Next will it be illegal to smoke in our backyards?
This is how liberalism sneaks in. They know that their agenda won't pass on a popular vote in most places, so they seek out vents for their unpopular opinions (activist judges/city councils) and 'leaders' with a bully pulpit to preach about how wrong it is to think the other way.
The local political scene is very important. Those people make laws that directly affect your daily lives. Most of what comes out of these places is restrictions on choices or the complete absence of them.
In California you can't even smoke on the street. You have to be in a private residence or you will get a ticket.
The thing that baffles me the most about this is that the local government considers all of these private businesses as 'public'. These private businesses have every 'right' to deny service to anybody who tries to patronize their establishments, just as much as the people have a 'right' to do so.
What can you do? Fight big government, vote conservative.
Interesting, Laura! I have read a lot of reaction to the ban on the message board of a local music site I frequent, www.comomusic.com. A worker at one of our local dives, Eastside Tavern (Aaron's been there) has this reaction (just gloss over the grammar and spelling errors):
That's right I've heard all the debates analysed the subject threw and threw done the research on the economic impacts studied the law and the constitition and have come to the conclusion that the ban is wrong and unjust and Eastside Tavern will not cower to the legal threats that present themselves. Here's how we can rebel and not have it effect business negatively. Starting now so we can get a jump on things we start a smokers fund at Eastside Tavern everyone that smokes can donate $1 $2 $3 or as much as they want over 1 dollar everytime they come in and that money will be safely put into the Eastside Smokers Fund or E.S.F. where it will accumulate interest and eventually be rolled over into mutual funds that will increase the amount faster than any other sound investments I know of. Now pay attention! Everytime the city gives Eastside or one of its patrons a fine for someone smoking the money for the fine will come out of the fund so neither suffer any finacial penalties and we laugh in the face of their ''LAW''. Yes the city will make money but we will maintain or liberty. Think about it, it's worth your $2 bucks once or twice a week in itself just to fuck with the city and raise some hell.
***
Ok, not very law abiding (and probably just sarcastic), but the other issue is enforcement. The bartender can ask someone to put out the cigarette, but what if they don't? Call in the police every time, preventing them from catching real criminals? And the owners themselves cannot be fined, so what incentive to they have to stir up trouble they don't want?
What I have read today says there aren't really conclusive studies about the economic effects. There is a ban in Maryville, for example, see:
http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2005/c/pages/smokebans.html
In the end, the ordinance in Maryville affected very few businesses at all. According to the Missouri Tobacco Use Prevention Program, 70 percent of the restaurants in Maryville were smoke-free well before the ban. Assuming that figure excludes bars that were exempted, the ordinance affected only a handful of restaurants. It would be very surprising to find that the smoking ban had any significant effect on total bar and restaurant sales in Maryville.
This raises one final issue to consider: Existing studies necessarily focus on communities that are among the first to implement smoke-free ordinances. Maryville’s ordinance is cited as “the first such ordinance in Missouri to completely prohibit smoking in all restaurants.” Such communities are more likely to have a proportionately smaller smoking population and/or fewer businesses that would be adversely affected by a smoking ban. This introduces a “sample-selection bias” that limits the general applicability of existing case studies.
***
So, studies have proven nothing either way. As far as second hand smoke, I have not read anything that says it's not as harmful as we think it is. I still strongly believe it has grave consequences for a pregnant woman and/or her fetus. In fact, it increases the risk of miscarriage. This is a case where there is no choice for the baby, so someone else has to protect it. We don't really have a choice regarding the pollution in the air, unfortunately, unless one wants to wear the freaky Michael Jacksonesque surgial mask everytime one leaves the house.
~Jade
That law in California is such hypocritical bullshit. I'm sure limiting cigarette smoke on the street is going to make a huge difference in the air quality of a state that has one of the most poor air qualities of all (in cities anyway).
As for Aaron's comment about voting conservative to fight big governent....I disagree. All American government is more invasive than it should be. It's just a matter of which ways you would prefer to be controlled. I like the idea of the federal government to provide for national defense, interstate commerce,healthcare, and travel...and not much else. I think it's a good idea to leave most choices up to the individual states..so if you don't like the laws where you live, go elsewhere.
As for Jade's comment about not having a choice in regarding the pollution in the air. I again disagree. While we don't have control over everything we breath, we do have a choice to drive cars that have lower emissions, live in houses that are more environmentally sound, use more efficient electrical devices, and recycle. And, (yes I know you aren't suposed to start a sentence with and) even though that is a miniscule fraction of the pollutants you breath every day, at least you are contributing to the "health" of everyone around. Side note: yes, I do realize that I do none of those things....making me a complete hypocrite. I just had to throw my 3.5 cents in.
` Hmmm, I suppose if establishment owners were given a choice, then customers could have a choice to go there, rather than to avoid going out to eat, drink, etc.
` But then would many places ban smoking? Where and when would it actually increase the number of customers?
Aaron -
your comment made me giggle, and i was just about to write my thoughts when i scrolled down and saw Jason made them for me.
I am a strong believer that the government makes too many decisions for us. But then again, who allowed them to get so far into our lives in the first place?
I like seeing stuff like this ban (not that i LIKE it) to wake up people up! Get their minds moving a little and question authority!
(And) I completely agree about local politics! People can bitch all they want about a ban, but if they were given the opportunity to vote on it - maybe they should've walked their sorry butts into the voting stations and made their opinions known!
that is - IF they get to vote on it!
Is this what Columbia has to look forward to?
***
Omaha's tough new anti-smoking ordinance banning the practice in nearly all public places comes with an even tougher enforcement policy.
The Nebraska city's elected leaders and police department are urging residents who see violations to call the 9-1-1 emergency system for an immediate response.
Omaha banned smoking in public Oct. 2. Penalties are $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second and $500 for the third and subsequent infractions.
Teresa Negron, sergeant in charge of public information for the police, explained the department encourages observers of infractions to pick up the phone to report the infraction – just like they would for any other crime they observe being committed.
In the three weeks since the new smoking ban took effect, people have been observing the law, according to the city prosecutor.
The Mayor's Hot Line hasn't had any complaint calls, the 9-1-1 dispatch director said call volume related to smoking complaints has been "insignificant," and city prosecutor Marty Conboy said he hasn't had any citations cross his desk.
"We're very grateful people in the city have taken it seriously," Conboy told a local television station. "So far, we have not seen any reports or citations. And as near as I can tell, there have not been any arrests."
The local emergency coordinator and Omaha police don't agree over how residents should report illegal smoking after the city's smoking ban.
Douglas County Emergency director Mark Conrey said people should not call 9-1-1 every time they see someone light up in a restricted area. He said the very idea threatens Douglas County's emergency system.
But, even after Conrey's concerns, Omaha police insisted residents should use 9-1-1 to report smoking law violators.
***
So now everyone is an honorary deputy morality policeman/woman? Oh, GREAT.
~Jade
What a briliant idea....clog up the 911 line to report insignificant violations so maybe someone that really needs help can't get through.
(shakes head in response to the absurdity of it all)
Post a Comment
<< Home