In September 2003, the Fayetteville City Council passed a city-wide ordinance banning smoking in restaurants and bars that served food.
That ordinance was upheld by a public vote five months later, and Fayetteville’s eating establishments have been officially smoke-free since March 11, 2004.
Now, almost seven years later, The Northwest Arkansas Tobacco-Free Coalition has scheduled a meeting for 6 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 17 at US Pizza to gauge public support for extending Fayetteville’s smoking ban to include all bars and taverns.
From the Facebook Event:
Arkansas still ranks 4th in the US in deaths due to lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and Number 1 for Stroke- with secondhand smoke and smoking being a major contributor to those deaths. Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion. That brief exposure can have immediate harmful effects on blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack. Secondhand smoke levels in bars are 390-610% higher than in offices that permit smoking — and 450% higher than in homes with a smoker.
We believe everyone deserves the right to a smoke-free workplace. Join Tobacco-Free advocates for a Public Meeting to gather input on Smoke-Free Bars and Taverns.
There are five bars in Fayetteville (Crown Pub, Maxine’s, Smoke & Barrel Tavern, Speakeasy, and Sideways) that have voluntarily gone smoke-free in the past few years.
Would you support an ordinance to make all bars in Fayetteville smoke-free? Why or why not?
Previous poll
Our previous poll question was “What should Arkansas’ nickname be?”
The results as of February 8, 2011:
81% – Let’s stick with The Natural State
17% – No way. The Land of Opportunity is better
2% – Something else.
No, I do not and will not support it.
Let the business owners actually have some conrtrol over their business-crazy concept, I know.
There are smoke free bars already. For God sake, if business owners want to accomodate smokers-let them.
I love the fact that they are meeting at a pizza place to discuss a health related bill banning smoking in bars. As if smoke is the only problem there… Maybe they should go ahead and ban the pizza and beer too since that makes us fat. They can also ban cars because they pollute and are less healthy than walking. YES NANNY!
I stopped going to restaurants that serve pizza and beer a long time ago. Even though I ate salad and drank water, I was gaining weight because of the other people in the room eating pizza and drinking beer. Not to mention I came home smelling like grease and stale yeast every night.
I fully support a pizza and beer ban. The menace of second-hand calories cannot be ignored. Wake up Fayetteville!
I don’t go to bars that allow smoking, but I oppose a full smoking ban. If the owners and patrons of a bar don’t mind the smoke, then bully for them, they’re adults. There are plenty of places to go where smoking is not allowed to keep me interested.
I just wanted to poke fun at your logic there. I’ll believe a soda ban is coming when outbreaks of diabetes are linked to how much coke the neighbors’ kids drink.
Except pizza and beer doesn’t kill you half as fast!
Bars are neither an essential public service or a place where minors are allowed, meaning everyone enters on their own free will as a consenting adult, whether as patron or employee. The scope of access is much different and constrained in comparison to other public spaces, and every right should remain in the hands of the property owner to axe or allow smoking.
Some questions to proponents of the smoking ban: are the existing no-smoking bars, currently rendered half-empty by pay parking anyway, in any way lacking in capacity or breadth of experience? Is it the dim, skanky smoke-bar ambiance that you so want and pine for, instead? Yeah, and I guess you are you willing to guarantee the financial solvency of the now-smoky dives with your patronage if a ban went into effect? Seriously?
I loathe smoking, but I hate legislated morality even more. Mind your own business.
Zapp, I understand your sarcasm, but this subject most definately is a slippery slope. Take the U of A’s fresh ban… that bans all tobacco products including dip. Heck, it technically bans nicotine so even gums and patches aren’t allowed (though they aren’t enforcing that of course). No one is getting second hand dip, but that doesn’t stop the morality police. Sodas are the next big thing in regulation, just wait and see.
There is an old saying about this and I’m not going to write it all out, but the gist of it is that if you don’t stick up for the freedoms of others (no matter if you disapprove of them), then they might not be around to stick up for you.
Sorry, I hit the wrong reply button!
Gah! What a terrible idea. I’ve never understood why some folks can’t simply vote with their wallet. Still….while we’re banning things we don’t like….how about we ban cover charges, drink minimums, and douchebags? That’s the ticket! Who wants to help me start the Northwest Arkansas Douchebag free coalition?
I’ll support the NWADFC. As an added bonus that will reduce the number of Fayetteville residents that comment here.
The rest of us will miss you.
I’m in!!
How bout ban some paid parking!!. Dang! I’m no smoker but I still think we need smokey bars!!
Personally, I would welcome it. I used to be a smoker, almost 2 packs a day at times, but I am now a pink-lunged sissy boy (or girl, as the case may be.) If all bars went nonsmoking, it would mean I could start frequenting former favorite bars again that I basically stopped going to because I was tired of leaving smelling like an ashtray (Brewskis, Mickey Finn’s, Buster’s, etc).
That being said, I do think it should be up to the bar owner. There are plenty of options for nonsmoking bars on Dickson, so it’s not like anyone is being forced to hang out in a smoky bar because there’s no other choice.
Zapp
Last time I checked I did not become obese from your hamburger or develop cirrhosis from your drinking. This issue it not about dirty ashtrays and dry cleaning bills. It is always about the health.
The smoker is not asked to quit smoking; he or she just needs to take it outside. Just as we do not ask the drinker to stop drinking – but we have laws that prohibit them from driving drunk, laws are in place to protect the public. Secondhand smoke is sickening and deadly. Every major, respected health organization in the world agrees. Only Big Tobacco disputes the facts. Did you drink the Kool-Aid?
This is a great point. Secondhand smoke is a serious health problem, particularly for those individuals who work at establishments which permit smoking.
No one is forcing them to work there is all I’m saying.
No one is forced to work anywhere, but every commercial workplace is subject to workplace safety regulations.
I totally agree. Jobs are limited in this economy, and people have to take what they can get. That doesn’t mean that those employees should be subjected to the secondhand smoke of patrons. In a “right to work” state like Arkansas, employees need all the protection they can get. We don’t have any bar/tavern employee unions; it is up to the voters to support the health of service workers.
No one is judging your choice to smoke or pushing their morality on you if you choose to smoke, they are simply ensuring that you are not infringing on another’s right to breath clean air, particularly in his or her workplace. It has nothing to do with morality; it is a question of public health and public safety.
I am confused regarding your logic for econimic impact – shoot it looks llike a majority of non smokers might come out and give more business if the minority of smokers took it outside. With 16% of Washington county residents being smokers*….who would you market to? Business owners should market to the majority, the 84% of nonsmokers. Policy should make a positive impact economically. All us non-smokers might try out our local entertainment area – without being subjkect to illness. To me is seems as if all establishment were smoke free, resturants AND bars, then there would be a level economic playing field.
(check Arkanssas Dept of Health data it’s monitored every year)
Perhaps that is why at least 84% of the local bars went non-smoking without the government telling them to? Let the few that are still smoking stay that way. They are definately in the minority but they are catering to their minority customers and are happy about that.
For example, I smoke and when I want to go to a bar, I often to to On the Mark because they allow smoking (and I love shuffleboard and their food). I hate the smell of smoky bar, but they ventilate so well that it isn’t an issue for me. Should they not be allowed to caters to me and my kind if they so choose?
Also remember, technically I can get public intox if I have a couple of beers and step outside of a bar to smoke.
If you don’t like it, don’t freaking go there! Let me have my fun!
Regarding your first paragraph, that is precisely the point I was making. Do you really take everything you read on the internet at face value? Of course second-hand smoke has detrimental health effects. The issue is that adults have consented to be exposed to this hazard. You and I may think they’re crazy because of that, but why should they be prohibited to do it?
It is true, no one is coercing anyone to quit smoking. Please, just take it away from those who choose not to do so.
The employees would also be spared exposure to second-hand smoke on the job.
I totally support the rights of the business owner, but what about those that have to work at the bars? Is it really fair to subject employees to the secondhand smoke of the patrons who choose to smoke? This coming from a social smoker. Hell… If it’s cold outside it actually makes me think twice about having a cigarette
So, we (smokers) should just stay away from people who choose not to? Awh… And, we should ban smoking in bars just so “fayettevillian” can go to her favorite bars again? Seems like people around here have a false sense of entitlement.. It’s actually ridiculous. Let it be up to the bars… If you don’t like it, don’t come around.. We aren’t “coercing” anyone to smoke either.. It’s not like anyone peer pressures bar patrons to have a cigarette.. Be real. People forget we were fine in the 80′s, when people could walk down halls in the hospital with a cigarette. I’m just sick of the pseudo health consciousness.. Mind your business, we aren’t troubling you.
And you don’t have a sense of entitlement?
Smoking impairs the senses of taste and smell. Anybody who smokes in the belief that it enhances their enjoyment of a good meal, a fine wine, a carefully-mixed cocktail or a well-brewed beer is wasting good food and drink on wishful thinking. And if smokers could comprehend the hideousness of the stench that pervades their clothing, cars and smoking areas, we (nonsmokers) wouldn’t have to ask them to stay away– they’d be so ashamed of their unpresentability that they’d isolate themselves and save us the trouble. (That assumes that they have any sense of shame or propriety.)
I try to isolate my self in smoke filled bars
Taylor: If you read through my entire comment, you would notice at the end that I said I think it should be up to the bar owners. No where did I stamp my feet and demand smokers be kicked out so I could go to my favorite bars again.
I think a “false sense of entitlement” is more apt to describe people who believe they should be allowed to fill a room with disease-causing fumes at their leisure, with no regard to the rights of others. As more smoke-free places pop up, the dirtier and less desirable the smoking establishments become. As for banning smoking in bars, I think a strong case can be made for workplace safety. Cigarette smoke, unlike say coal dust when working in coal mines, is not just an unavoidable reality. It is something that can be controlled and limited in order to make a workplace safer and healthier.
Very well put.
I supported the ban in restaurants, and oppose it for bars. So many bars have realized the bottom-line benefits of going nonsmoking that eventually, it won’t matter and Roger’s Rec will be the only place left that allows smoking. The vast majority of us will be rid of smoking without resorting to legislation.
I smoked for years until I finally wised up, and it seems that, more and more, others are doing the same. And it’s not just for health-related reasons. A financial adviser buddy of mine told me he quit because he realized that when potential clients smelled cigarette smoke on him, it was, in his words, “a downgrade.” They thought less of him as a financial adviser because they knew he smoked. Fair or not, that assessment is theirs to make.
One area in which I’m fine with the intervention of law is smoking around children. You should not be allowed to smoke in a car or in any room with kids, even in your own home, period. You’re not allowed to give kids booze. Cigarette smoke, even secondhand, should be treated the same way.
I didn’t realize people when to bars to eat raw vegetables and try out Jack Lelanne Juicer recipes.
Nope. Won’t support it.
Once again robertocampana with the wise words.
If they legalize pot, I am for smoking anywhere. Tobacco, not so much.
I like your style, Dude.
If this truly is an effort to protect the health of workers, as the ad on this site claims, wouldn’t it be even better to require comprehensive health care benefits for all employees or a national single-payer plan that covers everyone? Just saying.
I would support the ban.
Why are people still smoking to begin with? Newsflash: It’s 2011.
I support this ban. Let the smokers smoke on the street.
Preach it!
Just don’t bum a cigarette off of us smokers because you only smoke when you drink.
I support the ban. I think the focus of this ban on smoking in bars is not pointed at taking the rights away from an select group but toward the protection of a group – the employees of smoking establishments.
There are arguments that it is a person’s choice to work in such an environment, that they have the right to chose not to go in just like a non-smoker has the right to chose not visit such an establishment. But it is my personal opinion that not everyone who works in a bar feel they have that choice. Of the people I know that work in bars, most work there because they do not feel they can get a better job or they are at the end of their rope financially and will grab at any life line they can to support themselves and their family. They are willing to risk their health in that smokey environment in order to support the ones they love.
Yes, comprehensive health care benefits for all employees or a national single-payer plan that covers everyone would be wonderful, but who are we kidding … not in my life time will we see this country move in that direction. Just look at the mess the mention of health reform is causing. As a human being, it is our duty to look around us see what is affecting those we know and love and act on a level that we can.
I know banning smoking from bars won’t save my friends from their financial issues, woes, and all medical malaise they may suffer in life. But if i can do anything to help protect their health by supporting an ordinance that will over all provide a healthier work environment for them to work in then I will.
I think we need to stop thinking about ourselves for once and think of our family, friends and neighbors who may not really have a choice where they work..but work there just because they need that paycheck at the end of the week.
How dare someone (I’m looking at you David Franks and Erin) treat smokers as if they were second rate citizens. No one is asking you to sit in a bar that accommodates smokers. Go to a smoke free bar. I don’t moan and complain at the fact I can’t smoke if I am at a bar that has chosen to be smoke free. When I go to a bar-(a bar mind you, not a gym, school, church, court house, etc), part of the service I pay for is the right to smoke while I drink. You don’t want to pay for that service-sweet- drink somewhere else. It’s should be a business owner’s right to decide. Most employees that work in bars smoke. They would smoke no matter where they worked. As smokers go, one smokes until one decide to quit. If an employee is so concerned with second hand smoke, there are numerous other bars in Fayetteville that offer an alternative.
Why do you smoke, fully knowing all of the side effects associated with it?
I haven’t treated anybody as anything. I just pointed out the facts that smoking impairs the senses of taste and smell, and that smokers stink. You seem to be oversensitive– maybe you need a smoke to “help you relax”.
I wish you could smoke in church. That would be awesome. God is immune to second hand smoke. Does it fall within our religious rights if it’s part of the service? Kind of like Our Chuch, but stinkier…..and less high.
AMEN, QUIET!
I hate it when the government overreaches and tries to do away with a person’s property rights. A bar owner should have the right to do with his proberty as he chooses so long as he does not inflict his choices on others. He doesn’t demand employees to work at his establishment nor patrons to frequent it. Both these groups make a choice as is their right.
If it’s about the impact smoke has on people other than the smoker then I vote we should ban all foods linked with obesity. The doctors and hospitals are up to their eyeballs in treating weight relating illnesses and disease. This demand drives up the cost of health care for people like me who aren’t obese. This in turn limits my ability to access health care due to costs.
Just sayin.
“If it’s about the impact smoke has on people other than the smoker then I vote we should ban all foods linked with obesity.”
The idea that my neighbor eating 4 Double Whoppers a day has the same effect on me as my breathing second-hand smoke is nonsense. One has a direct negative effect on my health, the other is indirect and non-specific. I do get the point you’re making, but it’s only serving to confuse the debate.
The first paragraph of your post strikes the core issue in this discussion. The harmful effects of tobacco are well known, and I think it’s safe to assume that anybody hanging out or working in a smoke-filled bar is consenting to be exposed to its effects. If they choose to patronize or work in such a business, why should they not be free to do so?
Well I think it should be freedom of choice,as long as it’s OK to bum a smoker ..now and then..
It’s absolutely 100% up to the bar owner. If you disagree, you’re wrong. Period. Most bars/pubs/nightclubs have “private club” permits. You’re technically a “member” or “guest”. You’re invited. Or, you can pass. It’s not public property. Want to pay someone’s lease? Payroll taxes? Sales taxes? Insurance? Utilities? Permit fees? Nope. Bugger off then and let them run THEIR business. Or, outlaw tobbaco. Or, even better, open your own dream business. Re employees, bollocks. Don’t take the job if you have an issue with smoking. It’s legal. The majority of bartenders I’ve witnessed could compete with Keith Richards. I’d love to see the long list of bar employee support for this. There isn’t. There hasn’t been. There never will be. It’s a lame fabrication. If you really believe you have a right to decide for a 21+ private club owner whether he/she can have smoking or not, you’re an anti-American idiot. It’s not a health argument. It’s a property owner’s rights argument. Sorry you like/dislike smoking. It’s not up to you. The only vote YOU get is deciding whether to patronize or not.
Entitled? To what? Do what is my right as a citizen?? Just as it is your decision not to visit said bars.. That way.. Everyone can be inconvenienced a bit.. It’s fair.
Actually, you don’t have a right to go to a bar and smoke– at least, one that cannot somehow be superseded by the owner’s right to refuse service to you.
By the way, in reference to your earlier comment: When you smoke, you coerce everybody around you to smoke.
Property rights are not absolute– governments exercise all kinds of control over them. Zoning is perhaps the most obvious, but easements and rights-of-way, health and safety inspections for buildings and premises, building codes and related codes are all governmental controls over property use. They help to ensure that the advantage of the property owner isn’t to the detriment of society at large.
Not that the notion of “property rights” exactly applies to a business per se, but the government also exercises control over businesses: occupancy limitations, workplace safety regulations, food safety inspections, civil rights and accessibility laws, and so on are all restrictions on business operations that we expect and demand. Again, these help to ensure that the advantage to the owner isn’t to the detriment of his customers.
What happens when a customer insists upon one detriment but rejects another? Why will people complain about a hair in their sandwich, or a dirty glass– while smoking? Smoking should be up to the owner, but hair and dirt shouldn’t? Cigarette smoke is a greater threat to health than a hair, and no less a threat than the dirty glass; second-hand smoke affects everybody in the room, while the hair or the dirty glass affects only one customer. But watch: smokers will complain about that hair or glass– every time– and will probably complain if they can’t smoke.
Think of the money that could be saved all around if smoking-allowed establishments were exempted from inspections. Why would smokers care, really?
Clearly, this is a matter of State’s Rights.
Seems to me that it’s a matter of workplace safety. Nonsmokers in a smoky workplace are at risk for several tobacco-related diseases. Secondhand smoke is clearly linked to emphysema and lung cancer, as well as coronary artery disease and other health problems. Studies suggest that 15-35% of lung cancer among people who have never smoked is caused by secondhand smoke. In the United States, 53,000 deaths each year are linked to secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.
Enhancing workplace safety is in everyone’s best interest; it is the responsibility of both the employer and the government.
Smoking is LEGAL. This seems to be the basic point anti-smokers are missing. It’s not “hair in food”. It’s not “fat in a french fry”. It’s a horribly unhealthy but LEGAL habit. Bars are mostly ages 21 and up PRIVATE clubs. Anti-smokers have every right not to patronize smoky bars. Bar owners have every right to decide if they want a legal activity that historically may have been a part of their business to continue. Smoking is harmful to all involved. Everyone gets that. That’s not the argument. Again, it’s legal and bars are generally ages 21 and up “private clubs”. It’s not the ironically “Think Free” folks place to decide this.
John Stuart Mill “that the only time a person should be made to do something against their will, is when their action harm others — “his own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
Analogy by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr…”The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
Freedom to make choices comes from accepting responsibilityfor the consequences of one’s actions.
And employees and patrons are free not to frequent a business that permits smoking. No matter what anyone says this is just another erosion of property rights. The only time government should interfer with commerce is when one person’s use of their property, be it land, business or the person’s body (which is their property) is unavoidably detrimental to another person’s use of their property.
Slavery used to be legal. Child labor and the 80-hour workweek used to be legal. Selling patent medicines with opiates and poisons in them used to be legal. The current legality of smoking in public is not a persuasive argument in favor of smoking in public.
My point about that hair is this: Why would you complain about a hair in a sandwich– an essentially aesthetic concern– while insisting on smoking– a personal and public health concern? I suggest that my mention of slavery is doubly appropriate to this post.
I completely support the ban….I also support other workplace regulations that apply to restaurants and bars, such as requirements to wash hands after employees use the restroom, health regulations regarding the storage and preparation of food and keeping sick employees from work. All of these activities can directly harm the public and the employees. Smoking is no different. It is inevitable that it will pass, the question is only when.
It’s not PUBLIC! These are private clubs with appropriate private club permits. You are invited. Not guaranteed entry. These owners could ban purple polka-dot shirts if they wanted…without recourse. Again, we’re talking about privately owned businesses that are ages 21 and up and hold “private club” permits. You’re not even guaranteed entry. How anyone can think an anti-smoking organization has a say in any of this is completely asinine. The smoking argument begins and ends with outlawing tobacco. Something that is never going to happen. Quit letting others make your decisions for you.
You don’t consider yourself or other individuals to be part of the public? Obesity is a public health issue, even though it only affects individuals. Smoking and second-hand smoke are public health issues because tobacco smoke is harmful to the health of smokers and non-smokers. The fact that an individual might be willing to kill himself slowly by smoking does not make negate the public aspect of the health issue.
Private clubs are subject to governmental regulation just like any other business. Try to cope.
Yes, yes, yes…smoking bad…caveman understand. You seem to purposely be missing the point that these are PRIVATE CLUBS. YOU are a member or guest. YOU have no guaranteed right to be there. Why don’t YOU try to cope with the idea that business owners and their ADULT customers can decide for themselves.
You seem to miss the point that private clubs are subject to government regulation: they accommodate the public, no matter what hurdles are put in the way. Even a cave is subject to government regulation, if it is within the city limits and is used for a dwelling.
I give up. If you want/need this decision made for you by “Think Free”, so be it. You clearly have trouble grasping the differences between private and public. Yes, clubs accomodate the public…if you’re game, a member, invited. Remember the member sign-in books of yesteryear? That concept is still active with the ABC. It’s not often practiced but still applies. It’s a private club with a membership. It is absolutely NOT public. How the general public thinks it can dictate smoking/non-smoking bans in ages 21+ private clubs is beyond me. Nothing better to do? Jeez, simply don’t go or ever a member. In other words, mind your own business. Again, the tobacco argument starts and ends with tobacco. If “Think Free” really wants to make a difference, work on outlawing tobacco. Not banning smoking in 21 & up bars.
Private clubs are subject to health and safety regulations and inspections, because they serve members of the public– even if those members of the public have to join the club to get in. Health and safety are public concerns, even for the segment of the public that goes to private clubs. A private club is no refuge from government regulation. Legally, it has been shown that a private club that merely charges a nominal “membership fee” to anybody who wants to drink doesn’t enjoy the same exemptions from federal and state law that a bona fide private club enjoys. There aren’t a lot of bona fide private clubs being discussed here anyway, but the point is, the government has some sway over every place of public accommodation. (Before you misunderstand me again, look up that term.)
It is not necessary to outlaw tobacco just to keep people from smoking in bars, and it would be foolish to do so anyway. Let them smoke at home and sicken their own families, decrease the value of their home with the filth and stench, or destroy their home with a fire. Let their families deal with the dangers. Smokers are perfectly entitled to make themselves sick. They just aren’t entitled to make the rest of us sick– even if we’ appear “willing”.
Those who work in private clubs in 21 states and hundreds of counties and cities throughout the nation have already been protected by smoke free laws in Workplaces, restaurants, AND bars. I am in support of a comprehensive smoke free policy in Fayetteville. It’s time we give the same respect to our bartenders that we give to other occupations. I agree with the earlier comment, this is way past the dry cleaning bills and disgusting ashtrays. It’s time we protect the health and future health of all employees in Fayetteville, even those who work in private establishments. However, the only requirement you have to meet is an age requirement. Not only is there no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, but you also do not gain immunity to the health implications from secondhand smoke at the age 21. We all deserve to be protected!
As someone else said, it will pass whether now or later. There is too much momentum in that direction. The private club argument is as laughable as saying that Benton County is dry- it’s all a part of Arkansas’s hypocritcal alcohol laws.
Gosh our society has become a bunch of cry babies relying far too much on legislation to get their way. These comments make me sicker than secondhand smoke! If this is really all about health, shouldn’t we ban computers too since they are detrimental to eye health? I have to wear glasses now and it is all someone elses fault! There are tons of places and occupations with marginal health hazards… That’s life! We can’t make the world sterilized. How about requiring padded walls and floors everywhere since people might fall and hurt themselves? Don’t we care about those poor falling people’s health too?
Agreed. This is ultimately my point. We all know smoking is a health hazard. It’s also legal. We’re talking about ages 21+ bars with no food service. Bars you can decide to patronize or not. If a bar owner serving ages 21+ adults only wants to permit smoking, do we really need Think Free or any group to ban it. You can put your adult hat on and simply decide not to go. If we’re getting past laughable arguments, let’s get past this one: It’s about bartender’s health…bollocks. Bartenders smoke like chimneys. It’s really about non-business owning, non-smoking babies who want big brother to do their dirty work. Anti-smokers who think they’ve got a right to have it their way in every last bar in town. There are non-smoking bars. Plenty of them. They could use your support. Leave the others alone.
Last post (I hope…having a hard time letting this go). I just don’t get it. If the owner of the Beer Keg wants to have smoking in HIS establishment, I certainly think he/she has right to do so. And certainly his customers are old enough to decide whether his bar is somewhere they want to step foot in. The owner probably IS the bartender. Just an example. I don’t know anyone from the Beer Keg. No one needs Think Free or any other group deciding this for the public. Make your own decisions and let others do the same.
Also, if you don’t think this is a slippery slope, just look at the U of A’s Fresh policy that is now state law. Smokers can’t even light up on campus outdoors in the middle of Old Main Lawn with no one around. Heck, they can’t even dip tobacco and that doesn’t involve second hand smoke. The inn at Carnall hall is in a tough position because of this. They charge guests $200 or so for a night and smoking guests have to walk a block to smoke legally (or even dip tobacco). They say it is to promote health (not about rights to fresh air), but you can go to the cafeteria and load up on cheesy soup and sodas… which is less healthy than catching a whiff of second hand smoke in passing outdoors.
A country in Africa is working on legislation to ban farting in public… do we want to go there too since everyone has to breath in that stinky methane gas? We could then ban body odor or bad breath because that can be sickening too. Also, those poor kitchen workers have to breath in carcinogous (sp) cooking fumes and deal with food messes on the floor that they could slip on and break an arm. We should ban cooking in restaurants to keep those poor people out of that death trap they were forced to work in! I had a job as a pizza delivery driver and I got in a wreck… I think that is my employer’s fault for putting me in that position. I needed a job so
I had no other choice, poor me!
I like how people justify this regulation because there are few jobs so some have to work in a smoky bar because that is the only job they can get… total BS.
The add on the flyer by this group states that bartenders have higher rates of lung cancer than many other dangerous positions. I guarantee that is not because of second hand smoke! This is because may bartenders smoke! More so than firefighters, etc. on average.
Are any of you aware of the degree of difficulty in acquiring a bartender position in these bars? Very rarely are strangers hired off of the street. That means these employees willingly chose this position knowing that they would be exposed to copious amounts of smoke. Also, take into consideration that if a smoking ban were to go into effect, then the smoke-free bars lose their appeal. Allowing owners to set their own policies is the only thing that makes sense in America, aka the land of the free.
Even if a person is willing to be assaulted, assault is not legal. Cigarette smoke is a form of assault when imposed on others, and should be considered as such legally. Masochism is legal, and if smokers want to hurt themselves by smoking, then, as you say, it’s a free country.
Cigarette smoke is a form of assault now? What about vehicle polution, passing gas, VOCs in paint, etc. etc. etc. If I talk to you am I assaulting your ear drums with my damaging voice? Man, your logic is horrible! Calling second hand smoke assault just voided all other intelligent thoughts you posted.
If someone is willing to be assaulted, then it is legal. Boxing, karate, etc.
Barroom brawls are not legal, even if the participants are willing. Boxing, karate, and the like are legal in regulated bouts or tournaments, or on non-commercial private property, but boxing and karate are regulated activities– by their own rules, and by law. Another example is amateur ultimate fighting. Even with voluntary participants and numerous waivers, criminal and civil charges may be brought for assault and worse; the same is true of boxing, karate and any other amateur sport.
Every sport– even an inherently violent one– has a line that shouldn’t be crossed.
It seems more likely that it isn’t a matter of smoke-free bars having a special appeal but of bars that allow smoking repelling customers. When the bars that allow smoking now no longer do they will attract a whole new group of customers that avoided them before. Patrons that still want to smoke will cope with the new rules much as they do in the other areas where smoking is restricted.
FREEDOM.. if the folks want to have smoking in a bar where they pay the BILLS and TAXES ,where the worst DRUG of all is served BOOZE…More Power to them. Owners should be able to have the FREEDOM to manage there business as they see fit.The City needs to focus on bigger matters and not get in this arena.I guess the CITY of FAYETTEVILLE wants to hire a smoking COP to go along with the Parking COPS,that eat donuts with the BOOZE Cops..Sell them a smoking permit and let them roll…
So you would do away with food service, health and safety laws and inspections, building, mechanical and electrical codes, food, drug and product safety standards, the forty-hour workweek, prevention of child labor, protection against monopolies,…
Speaking of protection against monopolies, what is your opinion on the current liquor licensing hoo-ha? Should the Phillips cartel be allowed to keep their no-franchise exemption?
@David Franks – “Even if a person is willing to be assaulted, assault is not legal.”
Agreed, and as such it’s time we reformed the criminal organizations behind professional boxing and football. Did you know that football players and boxers have higher rates of dementia than the general public? These athletes are exposed to horrible working conditions where bodily harm is always a risk. This is a public health nightmare!
I hope you’ll join me in calling for safety reforms that will disallow the violent contact in these sports that is responsible for so much disease. Our athletes deserve safe working conditions.
Did you know that people who smoke have higher rates of cancer, respiratory and heart problems than people who don’t? Or that people who are exposed to second-hand smoke have, for the most part, the same elevated risks?
I’ll be happy to join you, and I will take the issue exactly as seriously as you do. Of course, it’s a growing issue in high school football as well. Now that a number of brain injuries– including fatal ones– to high school football players have come to light, more people have become concerned about the issue. Of course, that points out the difference between people who take on physical assault as a profession, and who are trained, and people who are willing to play games, or do “normal” things, not knowing the full extent of the danger they think they’re willing to take on.
Come to think of it, I’ve never been paid thousands or millions of dollars to eat in smoky restaurants; in fact, I have to pay for the privilege. Ridiculously large compensation in exchange for the exposure might sway my opinion.
People want to risk their health by playing professional sports. This is acceptable because they will be paid well and they know the risks.
People want to risk their health by smoking in a smoky room full of other smokers. This is unacceptable because ____________ ?
…because professional athletes are contracted to play sports that they have years of training in and preparation for, and which provide the income and/or care needed to address the injuries they sustain, but no amount of training and preparation can allow people to selectively breathe clean air in a smoky room.
…because the government has taken steps to correct adverse health conditions for the general public (well, and the professional public– there are rules and laws regulating violence in sports) as awareness of the need arises: laws regulating open burning, landfills, toxic material management, automobile and industrial emissions, the various increasing restrictions on tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. As the dangers of second-hand smoke become more clear, it is perfectly natural that exposure to the dangers be regulated in public, just as exposure to those other dangers has been regulated– even if the segment of the public most exposed to the danger is small, and despite their willingness to undergo exposure.
Again, choice has played little part in previous regulation efforts.
This, of course, ignores the fact that certain relatively violent acts in sports are not legally considered assault unless they violate the rules of the sport. They are not likely to ever be legally considered assault as long as they are within the rules. (It is worth noting that the rules of football and boxing have evolved over time as the dangers of each sport have become clear.) At the moment, smoking in public is not considered assault, but it is more likely to be so considered so at some point in the future than are assaults in sports.
So our laws are designed to protect citizens only if there isn’t a big payday involved? How large does the pay have to be to exempt protection? My computer at work damages my eyes; how much do I need to make to make that exempt from protection? Should my empolyer be forced to throw out all the computers and go back to pen and paper? Should that be banned also since I could get arthritis from all the writing?
Actually, the government has developed ergonomic and radiation exposure standards for the workplace, and recommended practices for minimizing eyestrain, carpal tunnel syndrome and other health hazards in the computer-using workplace. If your employer hasn’t trained you in best practices for the type of work you do, and if you are really concerned about your workplace safety (as opposed to merely presenting an inapt comparison), then you should take that up with your employer, or check with OSHA.
Again, professional athletes (and computer users) have had workplace issues addressed by the government and by workplace training. You can learn practices to minimize the dangers to you, and apply them or not. But you can’t breathe clean air in a smoky room.
Those are recommendations, not bans. If the government wanted to recommend that the public avoid second hand smoke by refraining from patronizing smoking facilities I wouldn’t have a problem. Even if I followed all of the recommendations, you can’t work at a computer without looking at it – the same arguement you have about breathing clean air in a smoky room. I made the choice to take my job knowing I might have to start wearing glasses (which happened after working for one year) but I deemed it an acceptable drawback considering the many pros of my occupation. Bartenders make the same assesment and any that take the job obviously thought it was worth it for them.
We’re talking about bars here anyways. If a person is so concerned about their health that they consider breathing smoke an assault, they wouldn’t be at a bar.
In all seriousness though, this is all about where you draw the line. Everyone understands the government has to balance personal liberties with public protection. For some on one extreme, any form of regulation is deemed too much. For those on the other extreme, the government shoudl protect the public at all costs even if that means greatly diminished freedoms. Obvioulsy we have drawn that line at different places. I appreciate government efforts to protect our rights, but am skeptical of more and more regulation on every aspect of our lives. Throughout the years, we keep getting more regulations, but we rarely relax regulations. As such, we are a much more regulated society today than 100 years ago, and will continue to be more and more regulated as time passes. For some issues, that is great (ie slavery, corporate crime, women’s rights, etc.). For some not so much (the Patriot act, over-reaching smoking bans, parts of the drug war, overly aggressive TSA agents, etc.). I just happen to think this is in the not so much category.
It’s true that you can’t work at a computer without looking at it (unless, of course, you are blind), but smoking isn’t a mandatory part of the bar environment– either for the bartender or the bar patron. The physical effects of smoking are detrimental to the enjoyment of food and drink anyway.
Do you wear your glasses all the time, or just when you use the computer? Most prescriptions for glasses for computer users (or non-prescription glasses, like you can buy at Walmart or Walgreen’s) are more to correct posture than to correct vision anyway. An optometrist who is very familiar with the vision problems of computer users will also counsel the patient on adjusting the work area for the best posture, in order to intervene as little as possible in the patient’s vision.
As I said, the government has already intervened to make your workplace safer. I agree that the government cannot– and should not attempt to– eliminate every danger to the public, but it can and should take steps to address the most obvious and most easily eliminated of them, and the wishes of drug addicts should be of no consideration. It is irrelevant to talk about “freedom of choice” when talking about smokers. They have no freedom and no choice– they are addicts.
Are you really labeling all smokers as drug addicts? In your mind, is there no distinction between a three pack a day smoker and the social smoker who might smoke two cigarettes a week? Is the person who enjoys a fine cigar with a glass of whiskey four times a year worthy of your scorn?
You know David, I admit I’m impressed at your ability to come *so* close to making a well-thought, persuasive, and rational argument, and then wreck it all with two words. I appreciate the conversation though; I can’t believe that Me and I are on the same side for once.
Zapp Brannigan–
Thank you for the compliment. I generally enjoy your posts, and I admire many of them as well.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs in common use. By the time even a social smoker has been smoking for very long, he is addicted to smoking. (Part of that addiction is satisfied by second-hand smoke, so a social smoker need not smoke a lot to demonstrate addiction.) Calling smokers drug addicts is not scorn on my part– they are drug addicts. (Pointing out facts is, I trust, part of the rationality that you say impresses you.) My reason for pointing out this fact is, smokers have no freedom where smoking is concerned, and any rational basis they might have to argue in favor of smoking is superseded by their addiction.
However, I do differentiate between the heavy smoker and the social smoker because a social smoker will have less trouble not smoking than a heavy smoker; they would, theoretically, be less affected by a ban on smoking in public. Unfortunately, there is no safe exposure to second-hand smoke.
Eating and drinking are also, ideally, social activities, and smoking interferes with enjoyment of them. Are smokers out in public to eat and drink, or are they out to smoke?
You assert that smoking decreases enjoyment of food and drink, but that’s just like, your opinion, man, and irrelevant to the discussion. No matter how distasteful you find it, tobacco use does have cultural and social value.
Alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are all addictive, legal substances. With enough creativity the term “drug addict” could apply to most people; just because nicotine is addictive does not mean a full smoking ban is justified.
The comparison to other workplace hazards has merit, but in this case the hazard is entirely avoidable by those who do not wish to be exposed to it. You said it yourself, smoking isn’t a mandatory part of the bar environment. That is why many bars are voluntarily smoke free. Currently a bar owner can choose to allow smoking, and both patrons and potential employees can completely avoid the hazard of second-hand smoke by not setting foot inside. Why is regulation necessary here?
RE impairment of senses of taste and smell:
http://tinyurl.com/nmyvkg
http://tinyurl.com/4jnudq5
The impairment is relevant to the discussion because smokers claim that smoking enhances their enjoyment of food and drink. In fact, it does not; it only keeps them from craving a smoke.
Yes, alcohol and caffeine are addictive drugs, but as somebody pointed out earlier, the danger of abusing them does not extend to others in the restaurant or bar; the danger alcohol abuse presents to others outside the bar is managed as well as it can be, by restaurant and bar employees, and by the police. I’ve never heard of a comparable danger posed to society by abuse of caffeine.
Even for smokers, and particularly for social smokers, being in an environment where many are smoking exacerbates the ill effects of smoking. Social smokers particularly are thus exposed to more risk than they are likely aware of. Also, use of alcohol and tobacco together appears to magnify the ill effects of each. This is another level of risk that many smokers might not wish to undertake, but, considering the addictive and/or addling effects of alcohol, smokers who drink are even less likely to make a rational decision about that risk than non-drinking smokers.
Even willingness to be assaulted does not excuse assault. Most people who get into bar fights are willing participants, but brawling is still illegal. Workers in dangerous industries willingly take on the risk, but the dangers are minimized to the greatest extent realistically possible. Why keep a business more dangerous than it needs to be, if it can easily be made considerably less dangerous?
Thanks for the links. Your point is still irrelevant to discussion of a smoking ban. We agree that government must regulate the safety of our food and drink, but do you think they must ensure our enjoyment is maximized? Maybe we could push for a ban on TVs in bars and restaurants, those things really diminish the enjoyment of my meal. Also, let’s outlaw bad musicians. No, I don’t want to buy your CD, I want to enjoy my wings, dammit!
The big problem is the effect of tobacco on those other than the user, which makes it unlike alcohol, caffeine, and other social drugs. I still maintain that the hazard of second-hand smoke is wholly avoidable by those who do not consent to be exposed, and regulation is not necessary. You have not refuted this, nor made a compelling enough argument in favor of regulation to outweigh this.
I mention the enjoyment of food and drink because it is one of the excuses used by smokers to justify their habit. My point is that on its own or in view of the dangers of smoking, it is not a compelling argument in favor of smoking in restaurants and bars.
Let’s get rid of safety regulations in, for example, refineries, meat-processing plants, construction sites and restaurants. After all, the public is not exposed to the risks in the first three, those workers know the risks, and a lot of regulations are hard to come up with and costly to comply with– they make gasoline, meat, buildings and eating out more expensive. It goes against the public good to needlessly make things more expensive. If there is no point in taking one easy step make one workplace safer– with little ill effect on the public– there must be no point in all those expensive, convoluted workplace safety regulations that have such a widespread deleterious effect on the economy.
Banning smoking in public doesn’t go against the public good anyway: it goes against the public bad. Smoking has nothing to do with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Smoking is illness and death, slavery and the pursuit of the next fix. There is no constitutional guarantee that such misery should be prolonged. Indeed, the Constitution has been amended a few times in order to decrease misery.
The fact that you don’t feel compelled by it does not diminish the validity of my argument.
None of the hazards you cite have the cultural and social value of tobacco. That is the difference. Seems like we’re running over the same old ground at this point…
Workplace hazards stand on their own merit as reason to ban smoking in bars, but please tell me: what are the cultural and social values of tobacco? The only cultures here that assigned any significance to tobacco were the Native Americans, and after almost eradicating their cultures, it would be damned peculiar for us to choose tobacco use for singular treatment as a cultural artifact. Are you talking about tobacco farmers? Tobacco severely depletes soil. What sensible farmer grows a crop year after year that forces him either to continuously treat the soil– or to grow alternative crops for a couple of years between tobacco crops anyway? What about the asbestos industry? What about the fine old American tradition and subculture of the city dump?
If you want to talk about cultural and social value, what about the cultural and social value of actually enjoying a meal or a drink– a value that has hundreds more years of standing than the use of tobacco?
In regard to the music, by the way, as a patron you can ask that it be turned down. If it is loud enough to damage the hearing, an employee can file a complaint with OSHA, as excessive workplace noise is regulated.
I once proved to a student of mine that excessive volume makes it harder to hear and appreciate music. As he and his bandmates had always been of the “louder is better” persuasion, he was quite surprised. As I understand it, they toned it down a bit after that.
can someone explain the cultural value of smoking in their own words? do you grow tobacco or have anything to do with how it’s marketed? if not, is there value in being a customer? if you’re told what to think and how to view products and consume, how is your opinion relevant, and how are you free?
I support smokefree policies in ALL public spaces as a logical and comprehensive effort to improve the health of my community. After reviewing the above comments, I wonder, have we been so jaded by repetitive blanket statements regarding tobacco products’ health detriments that we have lost touch with the degree of severity and variety of disease manifestations cigarette smoke can cause? Or, as a society, have we failed to offer accessible and thorough education in this matter? As a graduate student of public health with a personal devotion to research in environmental tobacco smoke and early adult health outcomes, I am a slave to the scientific literature regarding the mechanisms by which cigarette smoke causes disease, the nature of addiction, and the interrelationships between socioeconomic status and health. So,
ETS and public health 101 :
1. Cigarette smoke exposure causes both acute and long-term health problems even in small doses.
2. Cigarette smoke causes more than lung cancer. It plays a major role in cardiovascular diseases, chronic inflammatory disorders, and metabolic dysfunction just to name a few.
3. Third hand smoke. This is what happens to cigarette smoke after it completes a gaseous or air-borne phase and changes into particulates that form dust and films which persist long after active smoking desists.
4. ETS is an environmental contaminant, toxic to all who are exposed and not contained to the user. It is also a completely controllable and avoidable health hazard by simply not allowing indoor smoking.
Furthermore, in response to several previous statements, bartenders, waitstaff, and other professions in the entertainment industry deserve access to the same health rights as any other employee. Assumptions about their choosing of this form of work and flexibility of opportunity are exactly that – assumptions and public health decisions should not be governed by that. Ethically, what a person chooses to do outside of work has no bearing on whether they should receive equal health rights in the workplace. And, finally, no, we were not OK in the 80′s when the public was so uninformed or misled by the tobacco industry that smoking in hospitals was allowed. My smoking cessation students struggle to overcome the anger they feel toward being taken advantage of by glamorous tobacco advertising. While we can giggle now at the ridiculousness of how tobacco infiltrated social norms in the past, devaluing its public health impact in the 80′s is no laughing matter. On a more scientific note, cardiac patients were at severe risk of further complications induced by second hand smoke due to its immediate affects on endothelial function and arterial constriction.
The scientific evidence regarding the ill effects of tobacco smoke debuted as early as the 1920′s and increased dramatically beginning in the 70′s. Smokefree restaurants are still a relatively new development in the grand scheme of things and aided primarily by policy at that in the late 90′s and early 2000′s. Ideally, a bar owner educated in the matter should make the right public health choice. But, it is 2011 and at the rate we were going I have lost faith in this avenue of development. City health policies (decided on by members of the community: your neighbors, patrons, business owners etc.- not some arbitrary big brother government I might add) such as smoking bans have made leaps in the direction of improved community health that I can not and will not ignore.
Wow, not smoking apparently makes you longwinded in print form as well. You could’ve stopped with your first sentence. These are not public places. They’re ages 21+ private clubs/bars. I can not understand any adult’s inability to simply decide whether to enter or not. Furthermore, I can not understand where a member of the public thinks he/she has a right to decide this for the business owner. I can’t help but feel this is less about genuine public health concern and more about “I don’t smoke and want everything my way in every last bar on Earth”.
Yeah– Damn people who think lungs should be used for their intended purpose.
Your hyperbole doesn’t stand up to reason, but it’s fun to read.
My hyperbole? That’s great. You have no argument beyond “smoking is bad and I have a strong personal distaste for it”. That should not trump a business owner’s decision as to whether they allow smoking in their bar. I’m sincerely trying to understand the reality here for you. Is it that when you want to hold court with a bunch of Vietnam vets and construction workers at Art’s Place you want the air to be clean? What’s driving you to make this decision for Art (or whomever) and his customers? You can’t imagine that poor old Art and his burnout clientele could possibly sort this out themselves? Do you actually have any concept as to what it is to own/operate your own business. Let’s say you do own a 21+ bar. Do you need a David Frank to decide this for you? Can David Frank not find happiness elsewhere and let the business owner sort out for himself whether he wants his place to be smoking or non-smoking? What about incense David? Can we burn a little Nag Champa or is that going to upset your applecart as well? Pick a bar where you feel comfortable. Support it. Let others do the same.
It was hyperbolic of you to say “I can’t help but feel this is less about genuine public health concern and more about ‘I don’t smoke and want everything my way in every last bar on Earth’.” First, nobody has suggested that smoking be banned in every bar in the world. Most of our argument has concerned the health concerns, and the only jurisdiction mentioned here is Fayetteville– very specifically. The cultural/societal arguments presented refer specifically to American culture and society.
I certainly have not mentioned any personal distaste for smoking; I have made no personal evaluation of the facts I have presented about smoking and its effects. I notice that you don’t dispute any of my facts, which is a possible avenue through which you could accuse me of bias. While you MIGHT assume that I find smoking distasteful because I said that smokers stink, you should also be aware that some smokers think that stale tobacco smoke stinks.
You also don’t know that I don’t smoke, though you might infer that I don’t because I am able to present well-thought out justifications for not allowing smoking in bars, or that anybody who can present such a well-stated argument is clearly too intelligent to smoke. Either inference is reasonable, but not conclusive.
I’m being sincere and hopefully, easy to understand. Your interests seem to lie in being clever and humorous on a website (which you are…kudos). But, it further illustrates that you have no genuine stake in this proposed ban.
Thanks for the kudos (wow– more than one!). You apparently do not respect my argument, though, as “clever” has a bit of a pejorative connotation. (Any humor is incidental, but I won’t pretend it might not have happened.) Yet you haven’t offered a solid argument to the contrary.
I would think that my having no genuine stake in a smoking ban would allow me to opine on the matter without bias. In the course of this thread, I have presented facts rather than emotional appeals, and have– seemingly successfully– factually rebutted the applicability of private property and freedom-of-choice arguments. If my facts and line of reasoning lead me to an apparent conclusion, then that is because I could not find adequate facts or a line of reasoning to adequately support smoking in bars. If you have any such argument, I’ll be happy to see it.
In any case, thank you for participating in the discussion. I like the Flyer, and I like to see more widespread interaction in the Flyer comments. Too many of Fayetteville’s blogs and such have very limited participation, or are dying on the vine.
I have no argument beyond the one I’ve repeatedly stated. And I sincerely believe it’s the correct choice. As long as smoking tobacco is legal, I do not see where the public has a valid say in whether a 21 & up private club/bar allows smoking. I see that percieved right as immature, selfish, meddling and somewhat cowardly. Simply put, if the owner, staff and customer are all happy to inhale, what’s your problem? Everyone can make their own adult choices in this matter. I gave you kudos for being clever and funny. However, resembling a local version of a Cracked writer doesn’t win the argument. I feel as though you’re basically involved in this debate to amuse yourself and wind up a few takers. The very most I can see happening is a provision that new clubs/bars (new permitees) would have to be non-smoking (if such a measure passed)…effectively “grandfathering” in existing bars/clubs. Even then, I would personally be against it but at least the business owner could decide on the front end if he/she even wanted to pursue opening a bar in the first place.
Drinking is legal, but has been more or less severely restricted from time to time. Smoking tobacco is legal, but the restrictions are generally becoming more severe. Laws change.
Incense? Interesting question. The oils and particulates are pernicious, and the smell is seldom an improvement. I would personally like to see all scented candles, potpourri and incense banned from public places because I’m allergic to them, but since my allergies are not a public health problem, I’m not going to agitate for a ban. (There is some concern among doctors about the use of incense, air fresheners, candles, and heated stenchers in the home because their vapors usually contain petroleum distillates and other dangerous stuff. Most homes lack proper HVAC for keeping the air safe.)
I have presented a wealth of facts, you cannot rebut them, yet you are not convinced and you dismiss them as humor writing? You need to lay off the incense.
“Cracked”?! I was hoping for “MAD”. Not the one you’re probably familiar with– the good one, up until about 1980.
Damn near everybody who makes a good argument does so in order to sway people, and they derive some pleasure from building a good argument. Your lack of perspicacity doesn’t diminish my argument, or my enjoyment in making it.
He he. Long-winded I can be. Particularly in a topic of personal interest. Why limit the discussion? It is exactly what this online forum is for. And, while my lungs are not required (directly) to type, I would agree with you in that my FEV scores are, as a non-smoker, likely better than an active smoker’s.
I do feel bars in Fayetteville are public spaces because they, using Dickson Street as an example, make up a large entertainment district as a whole that serves and employs a substantial portion of our community. In this atmosphere, smoke-free patronage becomes less of a choice and employee protection a larger concern. Also, in many cases, venues are conjoined and may share air-supply systems.
Furthermore, I am a smoke free person, but that is not the only reason I support this ban. I feel equally about environmental tobacco smoke as I do BPA’s and other endocrine disruptors or any hazardous contaminant that is in the food, water and air we directly consume. We have the right to research and support safe environments through education and protective policies in our own community.
Yes, I would support a complete ban on smoking in all bars in Fayetteville.
Speaking of work, David Franks, why don’t you give the keyboard a break and go get some done. There’s a kid listening to loud music somewhere. Go help him understand.
Do you have any substantive rebuttal to any of my arguments, or are you just resorting to the abdicator’s tactic of telling me to shut up?
It is my understanding that today’s kids are able multitaskers, so a kid listening to loud music should be able to develop understanding without my assistance. Since you mention it, though:
http://tinyurl.com/29x644y
Thanks for the heads up.
You’re like greased lightning.
Flatterer.
So should the Hookah bar close down? Same principles apply I believe but I sure would hate to invest my life savings in a legal business that would be completely shut down if this ban was inacted.
I’m not for the ban, only because I don’t want all those inconsiderate tools hovering at bar entrances or milling on the sidewalk, forcing me to walk through their crap.
I’m a non-smoker and only patronize non-smoking establishments, but I’m very much opposed to the full smoking ban. I think that public health experts such as Mr. Franks have done a commendable job of educating the public. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you, even smokers. But I don’t think that regulating what consenting adults do in a privately-owned establishment is something our city government should undertake on a regular basis. I think that our current arrangement is a good compromise. And people are voting with their feet, so to speak. There’s an establishment around the corner from me that was formerly a smoking establishment but is now non-smoking. Given a few more years, there might not be a single smoker-friendly establishment in town. Getting the city involved, though, is not a good idea. Let adults make their own decisions.
Also, their is a huge difference in this versus food safety and work safety regulation. If I walk into a smoky bar or apply to work there, I know exactly what I am getting into. If I order food thinking it is safe and it is not becuase it wasn’t handled properly, I can get sick without knowledge of my risk. In that same vein, food safety is regulated, but I can still pick food out of the garbage risking my safety if I choose. Of couse I won’t do that, but I’m dang glad I have the right to.
I have a question for everyone who thinks smoking should be legal in private clubs because that involves adults making a decision to be around smoke: Should smoking be legal in one’s home if one has children? A home is certainly private property, but the children sure don’t have a choice whether they want to be there or not.
The clubs in question are age 21+ so that arguement is irrelevent. You said yourself it involves adults making a decision to be around smoke. They are adults.
I’m not sure which argument you’re referring to. I was asking a question about what is permissible for the government to restrict on private property.
Sorry for the misclassification. My answer stands though. To be more thorough, I think there should be a level of acceptibility. Much like there are building codes prescribing how much outside air is required to dilute CO2 in the air. Even when one is not smoking, our exhaled breath is a pollutant and is regulated as such. That doesn’t mean it is illegal to exhale around a child, but it would be illegal to not provide adequate ventilation in a daycare because it is bad for the occupants. Now that I think of it, I would love to see David Frank’s thoughts on that subject… since he believes any pollutant expelled by one person that is inhaled by another is akin to assault.
Me–
RE the Hookah bar– if a smoking ban would require it to close, then yes. Most wise investors know better than to invest their entire savings in a public health hazard. Have you met any asbestos tycoons lately?
RE food safety versus workplace safety– I wondered if that argument would occur to anybody. The reason I brought up food safety is because food safety is a public health concern, and I wished to rebut the notion that private clubs don’t serve the public. (The government doesn’t regulate food safety in private homes because they actually are private.) Workplace safety is no less a concern, food safety argument or no.
RE “level of acceptability”– Doctors generally concur that there is no safe level of exposure to either first-hand or second-hand tobacco smoke.
RE breathing– Humans are designed to inhale air that does not include toxic particulate and adhesive matter, and to exhale that air minus the oxygen they need, plus some carbon dioxide. The atmosphere contains about 21% oxygen and trace amounts of carbon dioxide; exhaled air contains about 16-17% oxygen and about 4-5% carbon dioxide. On average, men breathe less than 1/3 cubic foot of air per minute while sitting; women breathe about 1/4 cubic foot of air per minute. Given the volume in cubic feet of most public and specifications for air exchanges in them, it is unlikely that I will ever be exposed to a dangerous level of carbon dioxide as a result of a roomful of people who breathe.
The gases of respiration can be dangerous in concentration (even oxygen), but they are not pollutants, as respiration is a component of the natural environment. I do not consider normal respiration to be assaultive, because it’s normal and necessary. Smoking is neither normal nor necessary (unless you are addicted to smoking). I do expect people to observe the protocols of good health and good manners in regard to breathing, coughing or sneezing on others while sick, eating, drinking or any combination thereof.
Ray–
I am not a public health expert. I have studied the issue of smoking for a while, and I almost always think before I post.
Wow… If David franks ruled the world…. I’d have to start looking for another world.
I wish he would look for another site to comment on….
Whiner. I comment on a number of sites; you might have to stay off the Internet entirely. Your distaste for well-thought-out argument is not my problem.
Why do so many people who cannot contribute to a discussion want others to shut up?
Not on my account. Your aversion to facts and good sense is not my doing.
Good luck, though. Send a postcard when you’ve settled down.
I know we all value our right to choose but when you look at the stastics for the massive percentage increase of second hand smoke in a bar it makes you realize how much at risk you’re putting those around you. Is it really that big of an inconvenience to go outside?
Madeline, is is really that big of an inconvenience for you to go to one of the 9/10 bars that voluntarliy ban smoking? The main inconvenience with going outside I have is this: If I have had 2-3 beers and want a cigarette, I am opening myself to a public intoxication charge by walking out of the bar.
What are your thoughts regarding the hookah bar? If a smoking ban was inacted, they would have to shut down. The people that go to the hookah bar certainly know what they are getting into. Do they not have the right to asses that risk themselves when deciding to partake in a legal substance?
yeah, go ahead and ban drinking too. it poses public safety risks, high mortality rates, and causes cancer.
Medical research indicates that where personal health is concerned, moderate drinking can actually be good for health for most people. Our legal system has settled upon a threshold blood alcohol content, below which it is generally held that a drinker will pose an acceptable risk to the public. Law related to alcohol use is, of course, subject to change. As for alcohol addiction, which is genetic, while there are many people who are addicted to alcohol, most are not; it is possible to be a truly social drinker, and to decide to drink or not without the mind-altering influence of addiction.
To the contrary, in the case of smoking, medical research indicates that there is no safe level of exposure to first-hand or second-hand smoke: smoking is inherently detrimental to individual and public health. Tobacco smoke is inherently addictive, as well, so it is more likely than not that a smoker’s decision to smoke or not smoke is not made entirely under his own will. Law has not come to a conclusion in the matter.
Oh wow, I totally get it now. You’re saying tobacco smoke is bad for a person. Is that correct? Totally missed that the previous 100 posts. Yeah, ban that evil. Ban it! I don’t want to accidentally walk into some stinky, smoky, whore-filled bar and be killed by cig stench because I’m 1) controlled by outside forces that compel me to walk in in the first place or 2) It’s just too awkward to walk right back out. And if those butt-scratching idiots want to smoke that trash, then they’re disgusting death-wishing morons who clearly need more enlightened folks to make their adult decisions for them. Yes, you’ve done an incredible job of presenting the many health hazards of smoking. You’ve presented your argument in a witty, humorous and highly articulate way. So much so that it seems that you don’t really mean a word you say…you just like playing your bagpipe music in public. However, I still say your argument is nuke-bombed to Muteville by the fact that 21+ adults can decide for themselves (owner permitting) if they want to smoke legal tobacco in a bar full of other 21+ adults. Perhaps you’re just not invited to this particular party. Move on. Also, fwiw, you’re conversing with a 47yr old man. Pre-1980 MAD and a 3′ bong were right up my teenage alley.
You might note that sam made a parallel comparison of the effects of smoking and of drinking that had not yet been made; I accommodated him by clearly pointing out the differences, as the lateness and cursory nature of his post seemed to indicate that he had not read the foregoing thread, interesting though it is. You might also note that I vary my posts. You have posted the same complaint three times without offering any rebuttal to any of mine. However, as compelling as the health information is (and you seem to acknowledge this), the governments place in regulating smoking– even for adults who go to “private” clubs for the sole purpose of smoking– is unquestionable. This seems to elude you; perhaps I failed to do as thorough a job of conveying this as I did the health issue.
Oh, wow yourself. I would think that a 47-year-old man would be able to comport himself better in a serious discussion. I took you for nineteen or so. Strange that you should mention the bagpipe, by the way. Since we’re trading biographical information: I used to have a recurring dream that I was late for a concert in which I had to play a bagpipe concerto. Damnedest thing.
19 eh? Well, growing up with R.P. McMurphy as a personal hero does lend a bit of permanent immaturity to one’s life I suppose. However, I think I’ve been civil, sensible and sincere. Let’s see, smoking is a health hazard (check). Government has had authority to legislate similar matters (check). No rebuttal from me on those points. You are correct sir. But, should they in this case specifically? I don’t think so for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. Tobacco is currently legal to purchase and smoke. The bars in question are ages 21+ and privately owned and operated. They are places of leisure. I can not see where this matter can not be decided by owner, staff and customer without government interference. That’s all. Also, I envision you as likely a late thirties going nowhere fast grad student. At least that’s what word calisthenics coupled with no heart usually suggests to me. Now, take your turn and then I’m bowing out. Our points have been made. Good day sir.
I will grant that you have been more polite than the typical nineteen-year-old, but your obstinate refusal to acknowledge the fact that the law varies over time is reminiscent of late-adolescent wishful thinking. Morphine, cocaine and marijuana used to be legal drugs. The law changed. The manufacture, distribution and use of alcohol used to be unregulated. The law changed. Laws regarding he use of tobacco are still evolving. In most cases involving these substances, perfectly legal voluntary behavior was restricted. That is the case here: a perfectly legal adult behavior, voluntarily entered into, might be made illegal; the smoky bar might join the opium den as a social hub of bygone days.
A three-foot bong, eh? You must remember– at least vaguely– when the speed limit on the interstate was dropped to 55 miles per hour.
Thank you. Perhaps someday we will do this again on another thread.
This is a health issue. Numero Uno. We allow health regulations in restaurants AND bars for patron safety. Therefore, wouldn’t it be prudent to regulate the air for bartender, server, musician and patron SAFETY?!
Or, do you enjoy drinking big tobacco’s kool-aid with dirty ice, glasses, facilities and the like?
According to the Public Health Law and Policy Technical Assistance Center: “no court has ever recognized smoking as a protected fundamental right nor has any court ever found smokers to be a protected class. To the contrary, every court that has considered the issue has declared that NO
fundamental “right to smoke” exists. So long as a smoking regulation is rationally related to a
legitimate government objective such as protecting public health or the environment, the
regulation will be upheld as constitutional”.
Cities have the right and duty to protect the health of their residents. Over 200+ people, including myself (as reflected in the Flyer poll) are asking to be protected.
And…Scene!
As someone who has lost two close relatives — both heavy, two-pack-per-day smokers — to lung illnesses, no one needs to convince me of the health risk. I was “scared straight” watching them wither away and to the end craving to have their addictions fed. Smoking is IMO a vile, filthy and dangerous habit… not much different than unprotected sex with promiscuous partners (also legal, BTW). While it may be fun, you’re playing Russian roulette. I suppose the good news is that evolution exists, and over time, those who succumb to this drug will be weeded out. I’m pretty sure my relatives, if they had a second chance, would have opted to live longer lives than be slave to tobacco.