With the help of at least two aldermen, members of the Northwest Arkansas Tobacco-Free Coalition will soon get to officially make their case for a smoking ban in all of Fayetteville’s bars.
Council members Adella Gray and Matthew Petty brought forth an ordinance during Tuesday’s agenda session that would expand the city’s current public/workplace smoking ban by removing the exemption for bars.
“There’s considerable research and personal objective experience to support the adverse effect of secondhand smoke,” said Gray. “I believe that Fayetteville needs to be on the cutting-edge of legislation to control this problem.”
I believe that Fayetteville needs to be on the cutting-edge of legislation to control this problem.
Neither Petty, whose signature is on the agenda request form as a co-sponsor, nor any other council member present at the agenda session, chose to speak early on the issue which will see a formal discussion at the May 3 regular council meeting.
Tyler Clark, project coordinator at Northwest Arkansas Tobacco-Free Coalition, recently participated in a public discussion with members of the Fayetteville Council of Neighborhoods and Wade Ogle, who owns several bars in Fayetteville.
Clark said 120 people die each year from their own tobacco use in Fayetteville and that in order to protect the health of its workers and residents, the city needs a total ban on smoking in bars.
“To put that into perspective, homicide, suicide, worksite accidents, automobile accidents, and HIV only killed 69 people in Fayetteville last year,” said Clark. “So we’re losing twice as many people to their own tobacco smoke.”
Ogle told the group he agrees that smoking is a health hazard, but he feels the issue is more about personal rights.
“Most of these bars hold private club permits with the state ABC board which means you’re a member or an invited guest,” said Ogle. “You can simply choose for yourself as a 21-and-over adult to enter, work there, or not — just as the business owner can decide whether to allow you entry.”
We expect to hear plenty more arguments both for and against smoking in Fayetteville’s bars on May 3. We also expect the issue to be read at least three times, meaning it could be as late as June 7 before a final decision is reached.
Mr. Clark, who is an employee paid with state funds, should be ashamed of making those numerical claims. Instead, he should prove how many people die each year from second-hand smoke in Fayetteville bars. I think it considerably less than 120.
I suspect that if Mr. Clark is paid as an employee of the Northwest Arkansas Tobacco-Free Coalition, he is paid with funds from the tobacco industry, as NWATFC is funded by a grant from the Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Program of the Arkansas Department of Health. Regardless of his income source, however, I expect that his figures either come directly from, or are reasonably derived from, research materials available through the Arkansas Department of Health or other relevant sources. You’re probably right, though: considerably fewer than 120 people a year die from secondhand smoke in Fayetteville. And it would certainly be a shame to reduce the number.
has anyone ever woken up the next morning after being out on dickson and said, “man, i wish there was more smoke/smoking last night.”
just get rid of inside smoking. it’ll make everything so pleasant you won’t be able to stand it.
more people will visit the bars. so many, in fact, it will make folks forget they paid to park.
and, just think about how much fay will save on laundry and dry cleaning bills.
Agreed. Note that the bumper stickers say “Keep Fayetteville Funky”, not “Keep Fayetteville Stinky”.
There are so few smoking bars in Fayetteville that I’m surprised this is even an issue. Nobody is making Adella Gray (or anyone else for that matter) go into these bars. It is none of their business. Who is going to be the one to tell the lifelong Art’s Place & Roger’s Rec vets that they can’t enjoy a smoke with their beer anymore? As a non-smoker I understand the appeal of a place being smoke-free, but come ON! These are bars and pool halls – places that people expect there to be cigarette smoke. Nobody is forcing the bartenders or patrons to be there. I would be interested to hear any employee or regular patron of these smoking bars speak in favor of the ban. There is enough nightlife diversity in Fay that there are plenty of non-smoking alternatives. The ’03 ban did a thorough enough job, let’s leave it at that. Allowing this ban to pass would truly be a forfeiture of personal rights and further the de-funkization of Fayetteville.
As a non-smoker i feel that a smoking ban is crazy. What’s next, no more red meat?
I think red meat ban is on for next month! haha totally agree with you. People 21 and older should be smart enough to make decisions for themselves, to walk into a smokey bar or not…..
Ah, the old false analogy between the dangers of red meat and the dangers of smoking…
Ah, another toxic post from Mr. Franks written from the perspective of pro-gentrification and nanny-statism in Fayetteville.
Do you not see how ridiculous defending this is? A group of uppity folks that would never generally even be caught dead at the few places that still allow smoking are trying to impose their will to change those places to fit their interest! These places are not particularly core to the public interest, nor do they provide city/county services. They’re solely for adults looking to spend money on entertainment. Like a choice to offer loud shows (that can and do negatively impact the present public’s hearing), how can any reasonable adult see why a business that wishes to offer its patrons the ability to smoke should not be able to offer it?
Just like red meat, it’s not exactly comparable, but it’s a choice that business owners and rational adults spending their money should be able to make. Everybody knows secondhand smoke is bad. So is loud music and drunkfood–but we chose as rational adults to make those decisions despite the side effects. Are we gonna further regulate those things, too? Some folks seem to think this place should be like San Francisco or Austin by next week, but the looks of things.
Toxic? How so? My posts are reasonable and correct.
Red meat is somewhere after salt and Happy Meals.
“I believe that Fayetteville needs to be on the cutting-edge of legislation to control this problem.”
-Have to disagree Adella. At this point, I think it’s a much more cutting edge proposition to let adults decide this for themselves. That is a key point of being an “adult”.
effin, A, cotton.
I suppose after this legislative victory we’ll have our own transfat fiasco within a few years here too, by the speed at which Gray & Petty seem to want things to move.
Incentives, not mandates are how this should be done. Forget nanny-statism and removal of choice from rational adults. Go with incentives to solve this amicably without reopening the wounds of 2003.
Something tells me supporters like David aren’t going to start going to art’s, the beer keg, roger’s Rex, etc. after this passes. I totally think it should be up to he owner. People for this act like it is a big problem but very few bars still allow smoking. Most have voluntarily gone smoke free and I think that’s he best way o address his issue. If second hand smoke exposure becomes something employees can sue over, that is a dangerous Path to start down. I’m all for worker’s rights but they know what they are getting into just like anyone with some on he job dangers to health.
I don’t believe that I have ever indicated that I support the smoking ban. The facts support a smoking ban; I simply post them.
Something about “legislating” and “morality” I heard somewhere… Personal opinion, but I don’t believe in creating laws to force people to make healthy decisions. Smoking in bars is not hurting anyone that doesn’t want to participate, everyone there knows the risks or dangers of the activity, and no one is forced into it, including employees. Smoking is dangerous for bar patrons and employees is just like saying soccer and football are dangerous for the players and referees, everyone knows the risks when they get involved.
I applaud efforts to reduce smoking, but they can be much better handled through education and enticement rather than immediately jumping to the heavy hand of enforcement. Once smoking becomes an activity that is not posing a risk to unwilling participants (I think most would agree 2003 achieved this), then it is no longer a municipal responsibility, local government has more pressing concerns than pursuing private agendas, no matter how noble the cause.
Smoking bans are no more a legislative control of morality than speed limits or food inspection are. Public safety isn’t a moral issue– it’s a social issue.
I disagree. Speed limits and food inspection as well as other public ordinances are designed to allow citizens to live in controlled safety. If you want to drive too fast in a controlled area, you’re permitted as long as you go to a racetrack where you and others accept liability. If you want to eat unsafe food you can catch or cook your own if you like. If you want to be punched in the face you can go to a boxing ring. Allowing a smoker to go to a smoking bar is not a public health and safety concern, it is a choice a citizen would make on their own to participate in a dangerous activity in a controlled space. There are no health and safety dangers for non-participants, therefore it is a moral concern, and not a legislative issue.
Look at the statistics on illness and death caused by tobacco use and tell me again that smoking and second-hand smoke are not public health concerns. But if you want to talk about morality, it is my understanding that to many, suicide is a moral affront. That being the case, allowing suicidal behavior such as smoking is immoral, and making a public spectacle of assisted suicide is evil.
Controlling smoking in public, however, is similar to refusing to serve a bar patron who has “had enough”– it is an attempt to protect the public from an individual’s willful self-destructive behavior, which also reduces the odds against the individual. Drunk-driving laws protect drunks on the road as much as they protect sober people.
We could go into the fact that a smoking ban is more an interruption of the addiction cycle than an incursion on individual rights, if you like. Once addicted to nicotine, a smoker has already given up the right to make a decision in the matter of smoking.
True, it is a public health concern, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is a public safety concern. Heart disease and obesity are even larger public health concerns, and overeating is also debatably an addiction, but we don’t legislate to protect people from these problems. Otherwise KFC and Coldstone Creameries would be illegal, and the whole notion of having bars that serve alcohol is suspect.
People have the right to make poor choices, including those that affect their own health, as long as it doesn’t affect the safety and well being of others. There is a social moral standard that determines when we legislate self protection (which is why dueling and other forms of murder that were accepted in the past are now illegal but wrestling and boxing are still OK). It seems to me the only valid argument for legislation is that smoking is now considered so morally repugnant that people have to be protected from themselves and can’t be allowed to make that decision. Which opens a big doorway leading to legislation against unhealthy food, selling alcohol, etc. This is a moral consideration, not a public safety concern.
Actually, we do have legislation to protect people from heart disease, overeating and obesity. Truth-in-labeling laws and standardized nutritional information disclosures are mandated, and designed to help people make more informed (and, one hopes, more intelligent) decisions about one’s food choices. That said, laws regarding food-related behavior will never be as strict as laws regarding tobacco because food is one of the requirements of life: we have a natural need for food. That is not true of smoking.
Nicotine creates an addiction very quickly, and very nearly all smokers are addicted to nicotine– even “social smokers”. Not all overeaters are addicted to food; the great majority of them simply have bad eating habits that can be altered without withdrawal. Many obese people have an underlying medical problem that causes or contributes to, their obesity; this is not true of smokers. Heart disease is exacerbated by smoking and secondhand smoke, so this smoking ban addresses that issue, as previous smoking bans have.
Yes, wrestling and boxing are still okay, but they are only okay under certain conditions. If one strays too far from those conditions, they become brawling, which is not okay.
I do not consider smoking to be morally repugnant– I consider it stupid. And while all morally repugnant behavior is also stupid, I do not consider all stupid behavior to be morally repugnant.
I agree, but keep in mind, truth-in-labeling laws are designed to allow people to make informed decisions for themselves, which is a key provision of this ban, there is no decision allowed. I share the goal to reduce and eliminate smoking, however, I do not support these methods. Essentially this ban is saying that a decision is being made to limit the rights of certain citizens, who understand the consequences of their actions, are not harming others, and do not wish their rights to be limited, solely for their own benefit and well being. Personally I do not believe that this is the function of municipal legislation, no matter how noble the cause. Citizens should be treated with respect and enticed into making good personal decisions, not coerced, especially not by their own elected governing authority.
Again, laws regarding food habits will never be as stringent as laws regarding unnecessary, unnatural behavior like smoking. And, as in the cases of brawling and drinking to excess even if not driving, the fact that one is willing to subject himself to dangerous conditions or engage in self-destructive behavior does not mean that he is automatically legally entitled to do so.
Well, take drinking then. Also unnecessary, unnatural, and I’ll be willing to bet causes about as many if not more deaths in Fayetteville through drunk driving, cirrhosis, and other health and accidental issues as smoking. But the US already had our 18th amendment experiment and we all know how that panned out. It is not automatically illegal to be stupid or self-destructive, just as it is not automatically legal that people are allowed to do so. But laws involuntarily enacted solely for the benefit of others that are aware of the risks of their activity should be the most carefully considered, and never enacted unless completely necessary, because they limit rights and freedoms. The role of the city council is not parenting, and citizens are not to be treated as children.
This law plainly states that Fayetteville citizens cannot make rational decisions for themselves after considering reasoned risk, and they must therefore be involuntarily restricted. You want a law that says smoking establishments have to put a sign out front that tells people there’s smoking in there, I’m all for it. But we’re not here to tell people what they can and can’t do that has no bearing on anyone but themselves.
You’ve got the right perspective, Arch. There’s just no reasoning with this guy, he can’t see in shades of gray.
From the earlier thread back in February, DF posted:
“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.)”
You can’t reason with that kind of unyielding, discussion-toxic attitude. Militant nonsmoker that cares little about arguments to the contrary or what such a ban means to others; he only cares about his sensibilities.
Here’s what you do:
Incentivize the desire to go smoke-free by offering tax breaks to the few bars within the entertainment district that don’t already put up non-smoking signage. Do it under the general terms of 95.05, and enforce accordingly: with penalties similar or greater to that ordinance for violations ($100 for the business, $50 for the smoker).
Something like the above. Don’t just outright mandate it.
Our experience with Prohibition is one reason why tobacco will never be outlawed entirely, as well as being a moderating influence on laws related to food consumption.
As I said earlier, the smoker has given up the ability (and so the right) to make a choice about using tobacco by becoming a smoker and abdicating to addiction; trying to assert that right in regard to where one might smoke rings hollow. But there is a potential health benefit: for “social” smokers, there is still some hope that by limiting the venues in which they smoke actively or passively, they might develop the gumption to stop smoking entirely. This benefit accrues even though they are willing to subject themselves to a smoke-filled environment.
It doesn’t matter that the illegality of willingly engaging in dangerous or self-destructive behavior is not absolute (which is clearly true); what matters is that the legality of such behavior is not absolute.
You have your position and I have mine. I find the evidence and arguments supporting my position to be more persuasive than your argument. Ultimately, though, there is no natural right to smoke, so your key argument has no basis.
wps–
The fact that I have a personal opinion about the stupidity and aesthetic limitations of smoking do not negate the correctness of my information or the soundness of my reasoning, as should be clear from your apparent failure to question those aspects of my argument. As for your contention that “You can’t reason with that kind of unyielding, discussion-toxic attitude,” it is disproved by the fact that Arch and I have had, I think, a rather nice discussion.
Ad hominem attacks and attempts to draw attention away from the substance of an argument are far more toxic to discussions than my opinions are.
David Franks:
That’s just it–the facts on smoking’s dangers are not in dispute here. I’m with you on that aspect, and Arch seems to be as well, although I can’t speak for him. The point is, supporting the right for a rational adult to do something unhealthy even if you don’t agree with it is not an irrational proposition. It’s being open-minded and respectful of others’ choices.
There was no discussion here, Arch took an open-minded approach while you stonewalled, hiding behind health facts (as if they were in dispute) and morality (though you deem it social). That’s unhealthy–this is a matter that hard logic and logic-derived moral attitudes cannot reasonably resolve.
I’ll agree, you have yours and I have mine, but just as you say, there is no natural right smoke, or do pretty much anything. I come from the school of thought that rights are not “permitted” by our governing authority, we don’t have to justify why we should be allowed to do something. By definition of our foundations of government we don’t have to prove why activities should be allowed or legal, but rather why they should be illegal. Instead rights are “protected”, and restricting these smokers’ activities does not protect the rights of anyone.
I do not buy the argument that because smokers are addicts then they forfeit the ability to make their own rational decisions and must therefore have decisions made for them. Smokers are not wards of the state, and they are not legally considered to be impaired of judgement or incapable of making rational decisions. That’s up to a judge to decide, not the city council. I will say again, and this is my fundamental premise which i feel is pretty self-evident, enacting laws to prohibit behaviour that does not pose a threat to public safety is a moral choice.
wps–
So basing one’s position on facts is bad form. That leaves what– wishful thinking? I base my position not just on health facts, but also on precedents in labor law, health law and laws regulating the use of alcohol and tobacco. Any court that considers this smoking ban– if it comes to that– will do so in the context of relevant law and precedent. As for whether this is a moral or a social issue, law and precedent– never mind public health and safety concerns– indicate that this is a social issue.
Do you think crackheads and meth fiends are able to make rational decisions regarding their next fix? Smokers have no free will when it comes to deciding whether to smoke.
Arch concedes that the basis for his argument (and yours)– the natural right to smoke– doesn’t exist. He then says that rights aren’t conferred by the government, which usually means we have natural rights. No enumeration of natural rights (life, liberty and property, according to people who are smarter than teabaggers) includes smoking. Regardless of natural rights, though, it is a simple fact that the government permits varying levels of legality for various things. The terms of those legalities change over time; this is an example.
Stonewalling? I have approached and countered each of Arch’s (and your) assertions. As for open-mindedness, the fact that Arch was led to agree with me on a few points does not make me any less open-minded than he is; in fact, I agreed to disagree with him, which is pretty open-minded in these parts. In that respect, I am more open-minded than you are, for you go so far as to claim that there was no discussion at all, based on the mere fact that you disagree with me. However, open-mindedness is not the be-all-end-all of argument: persuasion is.
By the way– have I ever indicated that I support this ban? (Acknowledging arguments in its favor does not necessarily constitute agreement.)
As a tobacco hater and card-carrying crazy-ass tree-hugging librul, I am all about putting the screws to vile, disgusting smokers. Few things gross me more than the stench of cigarette smoke, which I can detect like a bloodhound from a distance. Tobacco has ravaged my family, taking two and threatening another.
That said… if we’re all big boys and girls, we should be able to choose whether or not we wish to endure this filth by either going or not going to a particular establishment. Rogers Rec, which I loved in my tolerant younger days, is just no longer an option for me. If the proprietors of these places want to exclude me by allowing smoking, that’s their business decision and their right.
Some government intervention is OK. If we don’t have it, is it just an “anything goes!” world? Not a good idea… we’ll have cars without safety features, 80-hour work weeks, child brides, spoiled meat, etc…
But in this case, if people volunteer to kill themselves and call it “fun,” guess we gotta let em. Same thing goes for the hoards at the Biker Fest… please, please do NOT wear helmets. Let your freak flag fly!
You would think that in the aftermath of the flooding the Council would have more important things on their agenda than controlling the behavior of consenting adults. Just think, the death toll from yesterday’s storm in Alabama is approaching 200. If we truly want to save lives, maybe we should be focusing on disaster preparedness and response (a legitimate government area of interest) and leave adults in bars alone.
Of course the truth is they don’t care about saving lives, they just wanna make sure no ones clothes get stinky.
Well, gosh– when the city came out with the streamside protection ordinance, which is in part a stormwater management policy, they caught all kinds of hell for it. If the city had bought all the snowplows that people complained about the lack of during the snowstorms, people would have spent the rest of the year complaining about the waste of money. Beyond infrastructure and development, it is not really possible for a city to prepare for hundred-year weather events, and people would complain about the expense.
As I understand it, the only people who died from the flooding around here were people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who dd something they had been warned not to do. Make up your mind: do you want the government to control stupid or unfortunate behavior, or not?
Uhh, do you live in Fayetteville David? Agreed, this recent storm was worse than most, but many many areas of our town flood on an annual basis. Ask Terry Gulley how many projects he would like to address, but can’t because the administration doesn’t back him up. Last July we had 6 inches of rain on a single night and mine and many other neighborhoods flooded. Last I checked, last year wasn’t 100 years ago.
I don’t think you actually live here.
Yup– Fayetteville address. I used to live on North Maxwell, two doors down from the property that served as the drainage-way for a rather large watershed. My yard was often under water, and was constantly so damp that moss grew in sunny areas.
One of the peculiarities of hilly places such as Fayetteville is that water runs off high areas and collects in low areas. It is not something that can be effectively dealt with over time unless it is considered with a knowledgeable eye to the future– which nobody has. Fayetteville’s stormwater infrastructure was not designed– nor could it have been– to take into account the runoff resulting from the amount of pavement and building surface we have now.
Your post referred to life-threatening flooding, not the regular inconveniences. I responded to that.
These grandstanders who want to alter behavior on private property never cease to amaze me. They frame the argument not as protecting its citizens from their behavior, but protecting it from what others do.
My boss raises my blood pressure and stress which carries with it an increased risk of heart disease. I suspect the number of Fayetteville residents who die from heart disease is greater than those that die from second hand smoke.
Perhaps the city can legislate how much my boss can ask of me based on my tolerance of accepting his requests without stress?? My long term health is at risk. I am aimless and need the protection of an alderman!
You know…I believe that driving cars is a bad idea.* They stink up the environment and are dangerous. I don’t care if you have a license, that you are an adult and you like your car…maybe even need it (gasp!) in a way I don’t understand or even need to, as your life is your own and it’s none of my business. According to Ms. Gray, it’s necessary to regulate the lives and choices of others, as adults cannot always be trusted to make their own decisions. I wonder if I would agree with all of her choices? This kind of behavior is very telling about our city leaders and the direction that our nanny-state is headed. I’ll stick it out, though…I love this town.
Until you come after my beer. Them’s fighting words.
*not really
I find it ironic that we push smokers out of privately owned adult establishements (where no minors are allowed to enter) and into public streets where people passing by have no choice but to inhale their smoke. I’ve also noticed what I think is a purposeful, alarmist clouding of the issue. “When we were on campus, this guy was smoking next to a pregnant woman” etc… Bars aren’t campus, church, the library, the c-store, the diner etc… ThinkFree knows that. Get a new crusade friend. And Adella? She publicly likened property owner’s rights w/ legal tobacco to their right to cook meth. Apparently not knowing that cooking meth is illegal while buying and consuming tobacco is not. The bottom line is, in this instance, this is NOT a public health concern. Unless, of course, you’re a complete and utter idiot incapable of making your own adult decisions. In which case, you best stay out of all bars. Or, you’re desperate to start hanging out at Art’s Place and you just don’t have the guts to confront Art about your smoking aversion.
I think Adella and Matthew have a genuine interest in protecting the public health, but I also believe market forces have already improved the situation. There are non-smoking bars out there that cater to those of us who cannot tolerate smoke or know our health is at risk if we go into a smoking establishment. I do agree with Captain America that pushing smokers out onto the public sidewalk is not an appealing picture. Cigarettes stink just as bad outside. Where we should probably not allow smoking is in our public parks, at least within so many feet of the playground equipment. Could be that is already the law and I missed that meeting.
Good points Deb, but I’d add that their Adella and Matt’s intentions are irrelevant. Almost everyone who does anything in this world has good intentions (even people like Polpot and Mao had “good” intentions as they saw things), which is why we have to judge them by the quality of their actions, not their intentions.
I have so many choices now where I can go for a meal and entertainment in a smoke-free environment, so it doesn’t feel right to take choices away from others.
I believe that smoking is a danger to employees, and that indoor smoking is NOT inherent in the business of a bar, as the many successful non-smoking bars have proven.
So why should it be ok for a business owner to allow unsafe working conditions, when the unsafe condition in question is not inherent in the business? Many jobs have inherent danger. This is not one of them.
Business owners have a moral AND legal responsibility to eliminate dangers in the workplace.
I believe that this is a worker rights issue. The right to a safe workplace is the issue here. Saying that bartenders, dishwashers, security, DJ’s, and musicians should just find somewhere else to work is like telling wait staff to find a restaurant that has non-slip mats in the dish room instead of having the right to a safe work place.
What about Fayetteville’s police officers that are regularly called upon to enter into bar establishments to enforce the law? Shouldn’t they have the safest workplace as well?
Or perhaps a compromise? Bars can allow smoking but all employees must receive hazard pay, be issued masks free of charge, have free access to a nutritionist to advise them how they can minimize the carcinogenic risk to their health, and receive full (and free) health insurance benefits to continuously pay for their healthcare. Perhaps a life insurance policy should be purchased by the bar and be kept until age 65 with the employee as the beneficiary.
Do you propose the same “hazard” pay and counseling for employees of mechanics where cars pull in and out of a garage? In your hazard pay scenario, you seem to think that business will retain employees and increase their compensation / benefits. I love utopian fairy tales!
If tobacco is legal to purchase and use, an private property owner has the “right” to allow legal behavior on his property.
Friends, such vibrant discourse! Community in action! Of course all of you are correct. I suspect that nearly 73% of all people living in Fayetteville will eventually die. However, wisdom is cast nilly-willy amongst us all. Some of you will live forever, but most of you will perish eventually. (It is natural, unavoidable, even.) I propose a compromise: the 27% who will live forever can sot and smoke themselves silly evermore. The rest of you can avoid known smoking establishments or not.
What a first world problem!
While advocates of the smoking ban have plenty of scientifically sound data on smoke-related health problems, they have ZERO basis for claiming a PUBLIC health concern with the bar exemption. All individuals in a closed bar space where smoking is allowed entered there as adults of their own will, whether as employee or patron. For this ban to have any merit, there has to be a case that those who fall outside this group of willing occupants are exposed to damaging harm.
Wade Ogle’s quote is simple and eloquent statement of personal right. “You can simply choose for yourself as a 21-and-over adult to enter, work there, or not — just as the business owner can decide whether to allow you entry.”
The repeated and proven fact that smoke is a health hazard is not the burden of public threat necessary to remove this exemption. Tobacco is still a legal substance that can be used in private, and there has to be legitimate proof of public harm when smoked in a closed private space knowingly occupied exclusively by willing adults.
I honestly can not believe this is still an issue. Meanwhile, the real problem continues to be conveniently side-stepped. Yes, I’m talking about farting. Hey, I’d really like to enjoy my $5 drink without my nostrils being assualted. And while you look around, “shocked and offended”, we all know it was you. Stop!
I do wish a place like Rogers Rec could keep their smoking because let’s face it that’s one of the main attributes. If they placed a ban there I do believe business there would decline dramatically. I am quite torn here! There are valid arguments on both sides.
It’s probably too late to have Roger’s Rec designated a National Treasure, but it’s not too late to put Neal’s Cafe in the Smithsonian, next to Julia Child’s kitchen.
I’ll be sure to blow smoke in your direction when you walk past Rogers Rec and I’m outside on the sidewalk. :)
Ah– just like the good old days. I look forward to your blowing.
Has the tobacco free coalition petitioned the bar workers that are exposed to this second hand smoke for their opinion? I bet the majority are against this smoking ban that is labeled as a protection for them. Most bars don’t allow smoking so if a bartender wants to avoid smoke, they have many options. I imagine most bar tenders in smoking bars also smoke. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that would have been the fist step in presenting this legislation item.
They haven’t produced anything of this nature because they can’t. The mighty oppressed bar worker list doesn’t exist. God, I wish the wrinkled, snaggle-toothed, rode hard and put up wet waitress that served me my bacon cheeseburger at Art’s last Friday could read all this hysteria. A good laugh indeed.
First of all, how is its that Arts Place can flount the current law so openly? They serve very good hamburgers, so why are folks allowed to smoke…?
Secondly, what’s with this craziness about “private clubs” and patrons being “invited.” That’s so loony. Call it what it is. A loophole in the state’s Byzantine liquor laws to allow drinking outside of the law.
Thirdly, it probably wouldn’t hurt to take a look at other cities (like Starkville, Miss.) that have gone no-smoking. Did the world end over there? Did the economy crash? Did everyone suddenly stop smoking and get healthy?
No, to all three.
I lived in Starkville when they went 100 percent no-smoking and the process of drafting the ordinance was filled with the expected doomsday silliness by bar owners and other property-rights fear-mongering about the rise of Stalinism. But it all ended up being a non-issue. Everyone pretty much followed the law. No citations were issued. And tax collections rose because it turns out more people went out drinking…
The potential for increased tax revenue is no justification to seize private property rights.
Individuals have every right to disservice their finances and health in private through legal means.
RE “Individuals have every right to disservice their finances and health in private through legal means.”
That statement is often correct. In order for it to apply to this situation, however, you have to ignore the facts that there are no individuals in a smoke-filled room, that some rights to disservice health are already curtailed, that people in public are not in private, and that the nature of “legal” is subject to change.
I think it’s pretty clear tax collections have not risen in Fayetteville via the first ordinance. Heard any bar owners coming forward to talk about the great effect it’s had on their bottom line? Just because a dog can get used to being kicked doesn’t mean it’s good for him. It’s “craziness” to think that making Roger’s, Art’s, Beer Keg etc… non-smoking are going to equal greater tax collections. It’s not just “loony”, it’s laughable. If that were true, these owner’s bars would be non-smoking NOW! It’s going to anger a bunch of grown men and force the business owner to choose 1) a decline in business or 2) (Art’s) defy the law in an effort to survive. How are private club permits allowing “drinking outside the law”? Nice personal anecdote but modeling Fayetteville on Starkville, MS just doesn’t have much bragging value.
Maybe one (deliciously free market) answer to this smoking problem is for all the non-smokers to boycott smoking establishments. Then the bar owners may take a different view towards public health…
And I definitely agree, Starkville Miss., may not be that aspirational. But like Fayetteville, it’s surely not San Francisco or Austin… So they may share at least a little when it comes to context.
I’m all for it. In fact, I think non-smokers silently boycott smoking bars now. And I seriously doubt any bar owners are going to change their minds. Again, if there were no demand for smoky bars, there would be no smoky bars. That free market thing. Yeah, “Fayetteville: We’re Like Starkville” just doesn’t sound right. To the contrary, I think Fayetteville needs to be the city to say “enough of this stuff”.
Arts would definitely get my lunchtime business once in a while if it were non-smoking. In spite of their having delicious food, its just not worth it to me to head back to the office smelling like an ashtray after lunch. I never go there.
That’s great and maybe you should express that to them. But, whoever owns it should still be allowed to make that decision for themselves. I’m sure if enough people said something, they’d consider going smoke-free.
Hey Skip. Real writers would know that the word you were looking for is “flout.” At least you didn’t flaunt “flaunt.”
Ooops. Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for pointing out my lack of any mentionable writing craft. Leave it up to someone in Fayetteville to issue a snarky (and usually anonymous) comment:)
They don’t do that in Starkville I bet ;)
Erosion of property rights at the hands of far reaching government. I’ll never be a fan of that.
Changing laws in regard to uses of property that affect public health and safety is not an “erosion i=of property rights”; it is an enforcement of the responsibility concurrent with the right to own property. Our understanding of what constitutes responsibility changes over time. Aren’t you glad that your neighbor is not allowed to run a dump on his property? Aren’t you glad that dry cleaning establishments can no longer toss their tetrachloroethene out the back door?
Limiting what a business owner can do with his property is an erosion of property rights. Dress it up anyway you want to but it remains the same.
According to ADEQ, Fayetteville has four Elective Cleanup sites and two State Priority Remedial Action Trust Fund sites. These do not include the Cummings Landfill site at Southpass, which has elicited a lot of public concern as a result of the presence of hazardous materials. These sites serve as one example of the results of letting a property owner use his property as he sees fit.
No property rights are absolute. Even the Founding Fathers recognized this.
Not limiting what a business owner can do with his property is an abrogation of responsibility and a threat to a safe society. Ignore the facts any way you want to, but it remains the same.
I am not ignoring anything. Property owners presently have the right to allow smoking in their establishments. Soon they won’t due to governmental restrictions. That’s an erosion of their property rights – ie they used to be able to do something and now they won’t be. I don’t have a clue why that seems such a difficult notion for you to wrap your head around. Are there good reasons to restrict or erode property rights by the government from time to time? Yes. This just isn’t one of them. While you may seem to be pretty satisfied with the continuing erosion of property rights by overreaching government, not all of us are.
Ah– I see: you are conflating two points: You see changes such as this as “the continuing erosion of property rights by overreaching government” because 1) you apparently blame the government for responding to increasing knowledge about property uses that are a danger to public health and safety, and 2) you refuse to acknowledge the fact that property rights come with responsibilities. Property owners have never had the right to knowingly endanger the public through the use of their property. While this ordinance would constitute a change in property rights because society knows more, it does not constitute an “erosion”.
All property owners are compensated for such changes in laws because when all properties are perceived as, and are, safer, all property values go up. No reasonable person wants to own, inhabit or frequent a property that is known to be unsafe. People pay more for “safe”.
How is the property owner being irresponsible in this instance? Their ‘public” is stictly limited to legal, consenting adults. The fact that society knows more about the health hazards of smoking doesn’t negate that tobacco is still legal to purchase and consume. I feel it’s more than reasonable to allow the property owner, specifically a 21+ bar owner, the right to decide whether they allow smoking inside their adult-only business. I think there’s a common sense practicality here. Someone mentioned smoking in hospitals, planes, malls etc… and yes, totally disgusting thought. But, I think a reasonable person can easily see a difference between a bar and a hospital. I’m trying to imagine where smoking should be legal. In your car? But only if you’re 18+ and riding solo? What if your passenger is 18+, doesn’t mind if you smoke but doesn’t themselves? The car is your property right? That person is free to not get in I suppose. What about your house? Gross idea, but it is your house. What if other adult guests come over unexpectedly? Insta-smoking ban? Can you smoke in your yard? How big does your yard need to be? Does the wind need to be at a certain velocity? What exactly is the point of banning smoking in 21+ bars and realistically pushing smokers outside? So some can be more comfortable at the expense of whomever may be casually strolling by? Should it be just the opposite? No smoking on public sidewalks? Go inside the smoking bar if you want to smoke. Realistically, we’re talking what??? Beer Keg, Roger’s, Art’s and JR’s? Some of you seem a bit delicate and precious to be hanging at these bars anyway. Does anyone really believe that if the owners/managers of these bars thought going smokefree would be a benefit, they wouldn’t have done it already? I don’t think the supporters of this ban really care one bit about how it may effect these businesses. If the Beer Keg closes because it lost it’s fanbase, would non-smokers care? No. And even if business skyrocketed, which it wouldn’t, do we need to make that decision for everyone? I don’t feel that need. I think most supporters display a very childlike “I don’t care, I don’t like it and I want big daddy to do my dirty work for me” attitude. While others, seemingly more adult, can say “not for me” and support businesses that are more in line with their thinking. I get your argument. However, you do strike me as someone who is more interested in being right on a public forum than being realistic about this situation. That’s not meant to insult and I hope you can take it for for it is…an observation.
No offense taken. Like many– perhaps even most, but certainly not all– people, I see no point in being wrong when I post on a public forum. As for being realistic about this situation, I am simply pointing out, among other things, the realities of the legal underpinnings of this ordinance as it relates to the realities of property rights.
Even in the case of inherently dangerous industrial work sites, conditions are not allowed to be any more dangerous than they have to be– this despite the fact that employees are there willingly. Scales of actual danger vary from workplace to workplace, and so scales of mitigation vary as well. While some laws (the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example) take into consideration hardship on the property owner, most do not.
I agree that a lot of people who favor this smoking ban probably have some kind of childish or controlling motivation. But, much as it might induce one to dismiss the concern as insipid, that doesn’t change the underlying validity of the legal principles or context. Even if some of the messengers might deserve to be shot, its still a valid message.
I like personal freedoms and hate property rights infringements as much as almost anyone.
I can still see how this is a workplace health issue. If a person works in an environment which requires them to breath cancer-causing, life-shortening fumes all day, they should be given breathing protection.
In this case, its an easily avoidable hazard remedied by asking a minority of people choosing to engage in a health-risk to step outside. I find myself siding (slightly) with the smoking ban. I don’t think its much different than the restaurant ban.
Here’s where I ruffle a few more feathers. Those who find themselves addicted to tobacco should seek help quitting. You are ruining your health and wasting money. Its your right to do that if you choose, but it seems kinda dumb to let a stupid plant rule over your day to day activities.
You ruffle feathers because you are stating common sense- nothing angers people more than when it is pointed out that they are doing what they already know is bad for them. The fact is that smoking costs those who can least afford it the most. I know people personally that still spend $50+ a week on cigs when they have been unemployed for over a year. I think that is pathetic but I know better than to suggest that common sense fact to them. The continual marginalization of smoking is the only answer for the problem.
Remember when people could smoke on airplanes and in the mall and at the football stadium? It sounds downright Third World to us now. Nasty.
and in college classrooms, and even in the library! Seems so crazy now, right?
Declaration of Independence.. take a read..
I’ve read it. While it outlines some of the philosophical underpinnings of the United States, it is not a governing document, so it has nothing to do with the actions of our government as it must relate to the freedoms of individuals living in society. Its relevance to this issue, particularly the often-reached-for “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, has already been refuted in this and related threads.
Say hello to Thelma Lou for me.
I find it hilarious everyone here is so mad and fighting tooth and nail about banning smoking in establishments that are for adults.
Meanwhile no one talking about banning carbon emitting death machines also known as Fayetteville’s diesel powered school busses….
Thousands of kids sit in our city’s buses everyday and breath in toxic air from the engine’s out gases and exhaust, not to mention the environmental impact….
Lets convince the city council to convert our buses to biodiesel so our children and earth will have a brighter future instead of arguing about something that really only affects people who choose to be affected….
Now that would make Fayetteville Funky!!!
Go for it!
If we could figure out how to make a school bus run on self-righteousness, Fayetteville would have an infinitely renewable resource.