Posts
Welcome back from the holidays, fair readers. We're in the first full week of 2010, and the year holds many great promises for the optimists among us. It also holds many scary possibilities and the potential for a whole new set of violations to our civil liberties. This brings me to today's topic.
As of this past weekend, NC law prohibits smoking in restaurants and other "public" places. Why do I put public in quotes? The law isn't addressing public buildings, such as government entities where tax money pays for maintenance and the services provided therein. This law bans smoking in privately owned and operated facilities. In my humble opinion, this is obtrusive and anti-American legislation.
Today I feel more like a ranter than a writer. No, I'm not a smoker, before I get a barrage of comments saying that a non-smoker wouldn't care about the ban or that it won't kill the smokers to go outside, etc. I am concerned about the rights of neither the smokers nor the non-smokers, which are irrelevant here. This post is about the rights of the property owners and their lessees, which this law thoroughly tramples.
At what point do we draw the line on dictating what people can and cannot do on their own property? Are we going to follow in the footsteps of New York, which is now legislating the types of fat you're allowed to consume in the state? Why don't we go as far as California in one step, instead of piece-meal banning smoking? The anti-smoking laws on the 'left coast' are so prohibitive that I've heard people jest you're only allowed to smoke in your own house with the windows shut while hiding under the bed and provided no one under the age of 25 is within 100 yards of the property. People there accost smokers on the street, threatening to call over a cop for "smoking in public". I don't know about you, but I've never heard of someone getting lung cancer from second-hand smoke inhaled while walking outdoors. I digress, though.
The new NC law is an atrocity that dictates what property owners can do on their own premises, regardless of their rights or the public safety. I disagree with the proponents that second-hand smoke is the greater threat here; I don't believe anything is worse than legislating against the rights of individuals for "the greater good". This law does not affect any buildings that are required for the citizenry. I have no issue with the ban on smoking inside public buildings such as court houses; an individual may have no choice but to visit these places and should not be subject to smoke while conducting business there.
When it comes to restaurants, though, it should be at the owners' discretion as to what they allow. Very few places lacked a non-smoking section, and many had already switched to being completely smoke-free before the law was in the works (e.g. Red Robin). If you're allergic to smoke, eat at places that don't allow it or that manage the smoke well. If you don't like smoke, do the same. Vote with your dollars; don't patronize places that allow smoking if you're vehemently opposed to it.
People do not have a 'right' to eat wherever they want smoke-free; this is a privelege granted by the new law at the expense of others. The property owners have a right to decide what they will and will not allow on their own premises. The rest of us have a right to analyze the circumstances and decide where to eat based on our own preferences. Like the food but not the smoke? Two words: take out.
The new smoking ban is just one more example of big government coming to save us from ourselves. I have a message for you, NC legislators and Governor Perdue- I'm a big girl, and I can decide for myself whether or not to eat, drink or work at the smoky bar. I thank you for your concern, but you can rest easy that I won't sue the state if I get lung cancer. I will consider how you voted on this issue when you're up for reelection, though; you can be sure I'll vote for your opponents.
To my NC readers: I'll look for a list of how the legislators voted on this bill, and I'll post it in the comments section to this entry when I find it. Governor Perdue is in favor of the new law. I know it's unlikely we can repeal this one, but let's not continue to elect leaders who trample the rights of the citizenry. Even if you're in favor of this law, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll work their way around to trampling your rights eventually. Try not to think on it too much, though; you might find yourself wanting a cigarette and with nowhere left to smoke it.
Until tomorrow,
-MK
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
just a morsel for thought - what about the rights of the humble "service persons" who might work in an environment that would change from smoking-allowed to non-smoking? This is an interesting one for me - someone brought it up during a similar conversation.
ReplyDeleteSure - in theory, workers should BE ABLE TO CHOOSE to work in a non-smoking environment, but what if their circumstances (availability of work opportunities due to where they live or what hours they can work, or their economic situation, etc.) require that their only opportunity for work puts them at a restaurant/ bar/other private environment where the owner might have chosen to allow smoking. Couldn't this mean that the worker's rights might be trampled?
Now don't get me wrong, I am staunchly in support of owners rights. I had not considered this viewpoint. Its an interesting thought to ponder...
cheers!
:)
The primary practical issue with that argument is that the law only really affects full-service restaurants and bars, whose employees are performing unskilled, manual labor.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean any offense or judgment by this; as you know, I waited tables and have great respect for those who make their living this way. However, the hiring standards are not much different from many similar jobs where non-smoking is already the norm.
As examples, alternate employment includes fast food, dry cleaners, floral shops, retail, pizza joints, gas stations, grocery stores, bakeries, delis, movie theaters, etc.
People forced into this type of employment are not limited to the types of jobs where this law would be beneficial to their health. If they work in restaurants, it is by choice.
In addition, the law directly contradicts employment precedents set by the courts. Our judiciary system has established that people have a right to choose to work in risky environments. As an example, women won the right to work third shift at convenience stores, which pays better but has increased risk of armed robbery.
Finally, and back to the primary issue, at what point does the health of the employees become the responsibility of the property owners? It's one thing if the employees are unaware of the risks, such as hidden chemical exposure. However, every job carries some inherent risk. Secretaries are prone to carpal tunnel syndrome, ditch diggers have hurt backs, and bartenders learn to look interested while holding their breath.
On a personal, anecdotal level, I'd like to say that I never felt "smoked out" by the patrons when I worked in restaurants. We did sell more drinks in the smoking sections, though, which is probably why we had them in the first place.
You might not sue the state but many others will sue anyone they can and for ridiculous sums. There are certain risks in any occupation, but overall second hand smoke has been one of the most expensive to our f-d up health care sys and the costs of a few smokers are disproportionately spread out among all of us. Carpal tunnel and thrown out backs might not even come close to the treatment cost of someone on a respirator with lung cancer. Besides OSHA tries to regulate/mitigate injuries in other occupations.
ReplyDeleteOur overly litigious society is part of the problem. When people are taking "medical vacations" to spa resorts in Mexico and India for major treatment at western standards hospitals at a fraction of the cost, then there's something wrong here. But that's another issue.
Now it sucks to have "nanny laws", but as you know, you can have as much individual freedom as long as you don't infringe on other peoples rights or the health of society as a whole. Having been a smoker who easily quit (or rather kept smoking other things), I experienced this smoking ban first hand when I moved to SF in 99 and got a gig sketching / designing an enclosed "smoking room" for a bar in Berkeley. The owner didn't like having to build such a structure for the then new law but conceded that it would bring in other clientele that didn't appreciate the haze. Social responsibility trumping individual rights is a scary thing if the definition of "social responsibility" is in the wrong hands - like elitist social lib-tards. Guess that will be another debate...
Oh and although this is more about health care reform this puppy (starting at 2:30) might explain my viewpoint better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY6Sd68CmIU
ReplyDeleteWhile you make some valid points, Phrancis, you still haven't addressed the central issue: at what point does it become the responsibility of the business owner to take care of the health of his employees to the detriment of his own business? Again, we're not talking about a hidden risk. We're also not talking about OSHA-regulated issues. OSHA took care of the problem years ago by requiring smoke eaters and minimum ventilation standards. If someone was being "smoked out" in a bar, the owner was already breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteRestaurant sales do not go down as part of the smoking ban, but alcohol sales do suffer in most climates. They don't suffer as much in California where the winter isn't bitter, nor do they go down as much in NY where the population is too large for a smoking ban to have enough impact.
In places like NC, though, the sales are extremely likely to suffer for two reasons. First, the ban doesn't allow smoking on patios if they have a roof or 3 or more walls (or half walls). The law also doesn't allow for "smoking rooms", so business owners can't go that route. There is nowhere for a smoker to go that doesn't (socially) require they pay their tab first. Second, our summer and winter weather hits the extremes, so people who would have had a drink while smoking will instead leave the establishment altogether when they're ready for a cigarette. In fact, they've shown that even habitual drinkers (read: barflies and alcoholics) will drink at home where they can smoke rather than patronize the bars if they have to go outside to smoke.
This is all illustrated by the fact that many bars make a little extra money selling cigarettes because they know the clients will stay for another drink if they don't have to leave to buy smokes. Once they get up, though, it's unlikely they'll spend any more money on that visit. Leaving to buy smokes isn't much different than leaving to smoke. Once you've gathered up your stuff, you're not likely to go back inside the bar.
The law diminishes the rights of the owners and threatens the profitability of their businesses in order to keep people from being responsible for their own actions and choices. As patrons, people choose where to spend their money. If they choose to spend their money in a place that allows smoking, then they should accept that they might inhale smoke. As employees, people choose where they work. If they have no options outside restaurants, that is a consequence of the choices they made previously in life.
As to the cost of smoking on society, the taxes on cigarettes are supposed to cover those. I'm all for consumption taxes; pay for what you use. If the taxes aren't covering those costs, then either the taxes or how they are spent needs to be reassessed.
As promised, this is the roll call for the NC General Assembly's vote on the smoking ban:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscriptP.pl?sSession=2009&sChamber=H&RCS=411
What has not made the popular press is that this barely passed; the final vote was 62-56.
Again, the overall bad habits and irresponsibility of other people generally isn't my concern, but the overall socio-economic impact can affect each of us when you look a the big picture. Yes there is a more socialist agenda in these laws which threatens certain personal freedoms (bar owners), but since you can't legislate the end of unhealthy habits then stupid nanny laws have to be passed for the overall good. History will look back and judge how smart these laws were for the time. It might be praised like the drunk driving laws or it might be seen as ridiculous as "no spitting on the sidewalk" laws.
ReplyDelete