Why Not Return Smoking to Flights?
With most places such as hospitals and office buildings taking the wise step to protect the health of occupants smokers in these places are forced outside — or into restaurants, bars casinos and such. The place where you want to enjoy a meal is where they want to exercise their freedom. Take this line from a pro-smoking flier:
In many cases, the only place you would be legally able to smoke is in the middle of the road.
Cue the violin player. You can smoke all you want in your private residence. Where the public is invited — hospitals, airplanes or the local diner. Of course Federal law prohibits smoking on planes. I can’t imagine how horrible it must have been to fly with smokers. The privately owned airlines were free to cut out smoking on their own but that would have set up confusing lists of non-smoking flights vs smoking flights. Non-smokers would have been forced to breath the polluted air of the passenger next to them. Again, I can’t imagine how horrible that must have been.
Should we lift the federal prohibition on smoking on planes and let the privately owned airlines make their own decision about smoking? Of course not. We all know how pleasant it is to fly without having the freedom to breath in the right of another.
Of course some would have suggested that airlines retrofit their planes, at great expense, with air filtration systems so they can continue to smoke anywhere they please. Because for them, it is all about them and their “right” to smoke. Screw the rest of us.
The same logic applies to restaurants, bars and casinos. If you don’t want St. Louis to go smoke-free then you must advocate a return to smoking on flights, right?
The smoke anywhere we like lobby says half the restaurants are voluntarily smoke-free. I know many I want to visit are not. I’d like to see the breakdown behind these claims. But assuming it is right, then half the restaurant owners have nothing to fear from laws designed to clear the air for all.
Back to the flier quoted earlier. I received a copy of a letter & flier sent out by the selfish we want to smoke anywhere lobby. No, it was not mailed to me. It was mailed to the owner of a couple of restaurants — non-smoking restaurants. This owner passed the letter & flier to me saying he hopes the smoke-free ordinance passes.  Read for yourself:
Alderman Lyda Krewson will introduce a bill tomorrow morning at the Board of Aldermen to clear the smoke in St. Louis. One provision in the draft language has been removed —- the outdoor prohibition. Smoke shops with a certain percentage of their sales from tobacco products will be exempted. The revised language should be online next week.
Steve said: “If you don’t want St. Louis to go smoke-free then you must advocate a return to smoking on flights, right?”
Sorry, this is absurd. I am a non-smoker, but I realize there are someplaces that it is safer to smoke than others. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. Would you say, “If you don’t want a total smoking ban, then you MUST be in favor of smoking around oxygen tanks or while handling flammable chemicals, right”
That being said, yes, I would love to know that all local restaurants and bars are smoke free. It would be a progressive thing to do and get us in the national news for something forward looking for a change. I just can’t condone flawed arguments against smoking.
Your rebuttal doesn’t hold water. Oxygen tanks and others are a clear safety (fire) issue. Steve is using other presumably safe from explosion areas as an example.
An argument to make smoking allowed everywhere including flights is just as crazy as the argument to ban smoking everywhere. I wrote the cover letter and for one you label me a pro-smoker which could be farther from the truth. I’ve never once advocated that people continue or take up smoking. However I have little tolerance for discrimination based up the publics dislikes be it a majority or minority. You may not like smoke, but that does not make it right to ban it everywhere. You have everyright to ask a owner to change his rules on smoking or withhold using their services.
One more point about “The selfish we want to smoke anywhere lobby”. Apparently you didn’t read the letter. Cleary as the letter states that we believe the right to allow or ban smoking rest with the owner of the business. I do not want or have the right to enjoy a cigar in a business that doesn’t allow it. Now wanting every business regardless of the harm it may have to cater to you – that is selfish.
We have talked to a lot of people who own restaurants/bars that both allow and ban smoking and they do not want the right taken away from them.
yawn
The big difference is the number of choices. Want to fly to Dallas or Atlanta from St. Louis? You have 2 or 3 direct options and another half dozen options if you’re willing to connect. Want to take the train? 1 option. Want to take the bus? 1 or 2 options.
Want to go to a bar or restaurant? You have at least 20 or 30 within a couple of miles, with a few, some or many that already prohibit smoking, and hundreds, if not thousands, across the region. It all boils down to whether rabid non-smokers are “entitled” to “all”, or if “a few, some or many” is “fair” enough.
And if the FAA would allow it, I could see a real business case for an all-smoking airline. I’d never use it, nor would most other fliers, but there are probably enough smokers out there to make it work on some of the more-popular routes, like NYC-LA.
The same logic applies to restaurants, bars and casinos. If you don’t want St. Louis to go smoke-free then you must advocate a return to smoking on flights, right?
Steve, this essentialist argument is bizarre and completely along the lines of “If we legalize gay marriage, then next you’ll want to marry your dog.” I don’t think anyone would advocate a return to smoking on airplanes, which are enclosed spaces with continuously recycled air and which are impossible to evacuate in case of fire. Bars and restaurants, on the other hand, can be well-ventilated and more easily open-air. Also, if someone is smoking in a bar and it annoys you, you can easily change your mind and walk out. It’s difficult to walk out of an airplane mid-flight.
I have a hard time taking people seriously when they send out materials with such blatant grammatical mistakes.
Bill, Tony, hire a proofreader.
I must admit, webby is right. It is one thing to have your forum post unkempt It is quite another to send out unsolicited paper with the same thing. While I did not give the paper more than a once over, not immediately identifying anything, the reality is if it were in my hand, I would have seen it right away and discounted the opinion therein somewhat if not completely.
But I am glad that someone is debating, what in my mind is eventually to pass, St. Louis smoking bans for public places. It is time.
I still think the science is a bit flawed, which is not to say that people are not affected, some people, not most. But even from a nuisance perspective, it is a habit best left outside with the real pollution that harms people. The pollution that we all participate in.
It wasn’t just Tony and I putting this out. One of our members has a direct mail company. The bar and restaurant owners who hate and fear smoking bans are handing these flyers (an acceptable spelling) out despite poor grammar.
By the way, we are working everyday with the Missouri Restaurant Association, the independent tavern owners group (over 400 bars) and an African American bar and tavern group (70 bar & clubs) against Krewson’s ban.
The main thing is to get the phone numbers right!
I smoke, but to see this as ultimately winnable is a bit naive To be honest, I want this to be over as I am sick of hearing this debate. It brings out some of the worst in people. As a smoker, I just want some assurance they will let us keep our homes and cars for our old school habit. I am still surprised they want casino’s, considering there isn’t a single smug non-smoker I have witnessed here that admits to ever engaging in this activity, but whatever, they can have those too. I just want my house and my car.
I am reminded of a visual from Steve Martin “the jerk” when he is losing everything and starts rattling off the things he needs. It is kind of like that in a way, maybe even more pathetic.
The bars can win by putting an exemption for “21 venues” on the ballot.
Tony,
Why are you against being labeled “pro-smoker” when you label the people who for smoke-free environments as “against freedom”? Seems to me you don’t want us to think that you are for smoking, yet you think we are all against freedom.
I’m for freedom, but the true form of freedom: the one that says your rights stop where my airway begins. Seems to me like the smoke-free movement adheres more to libertarian principles than previously thought.
Thought this was interesting: http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-libertarian.html
[1] Libertarianism, like socialism, is a vague ideology. The most common definition of libertarian is someone who believes that individuals should have the freedom to do whatever they wish so long as they do not hurt anyone in the process. Libertarians often trace this simple principle back to the great liberal, John Stuart Mill:
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.1
Jason – your airway’s right to clean air ends when you walk into private property. You are not forced to walk into an establishment that allows smoking. Yes, I do believe people that support smoking bans are anti-freedom. They want a law that puts their wants above everybody. They want smoking banned even in places they would never go. Clearly this an issue that the market can decide on it’s own. If you look at the difference between ten years ago and now it has embraced smoke-free on its own. It doesn’t need government intervention based on your likes and dislikes.
Bannist label people like Bill and I pro-smoking because its a lack of logical argument. When they run out of arguments they either say one of three things. They say we are work for/lackeys for big tobacco. They say we are addicted and the addiction to nicotine alters our thinking. They say we are pro-smokers who care nothing of others peoples feelings.
They beleive that everybody wants this and thats not true. Read blogs, more non-smokers think these laws are ridiculous than are for it. Thats why groups such Smoke-Free St Louis and its parent company The ACS don’t put these on ballots. For the most part they don’t pass. Nearly every ban in the country has been legislated in.
As far as smoking – When people I know that smoke cigarettes ask – I encourage them to quit. I let them know how I did and (aricular therepy) and let them know what to expect. I still smoke cigars and I apologize to no one for that. I’ll only do it when it makes sense and when I’m at a place that allows it. If you walk into that place and complain, you’ll get no apology from me since its allowed.
I live in Manhattan, where smoking was banned in restaurants and bars a couple of years ago (can’t remember exact date). There were all the usual worries and complaints, but the world did not stop turning on its axis. People did not retreat to their smoke-filled homes, refusing to set foot in an eatery or nightspot. Bars and restaurants managed to survive financially. Smoking bans are so common on the East Coast that I’m shocked every time I come back to St Louis and get smacked in the face by cigarette smoke in a restaurant. Once it’s done, even smokers will be happy to not have to breathe (and smell like) others’ old stale smoke.
(I made a similar post on the ACC web site earlier). The UM-St. Louis exit poll of voters in the March 3 primary asked if they supported a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. More than 550 voters completed the survey and they closely mimicked the vote for mayor. Roughly two-thirds of the voters supported a ban, and roughly 45% said they strongly supported a ban. Only 15% of voters said they were regular smokers. If supporters of a smoking ban in the city want to move things along, they can circulate an initiative petition to put the issue on the ballot in a future election. The board of elections has the signature rules for initiative petitions to change city ordinances in a citywide vote here:
http://www.stlelections.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=65
It would take some legal expertise to draft the petition, and by my rough calculation it would take a bit more than 11,100 valid signatures to get the issue on the ballot in the city. Although our exit poll results suggest that in another low-turnout city election a smoking ban initiative would pass, such a campaign would generate opposition from the hospitality industry and apparently labor too. But at least that way the issue would be decided by actual voters rather than the few who walk the halls of power. And maybe it would get some more people out to vote.
Kimball – so your saying that it would take a low turnout vote to get it passed by the voters. In effect, if its a big election when a lot of people vote it wouldn’t pass. It would take a light turnout when you could get more of your people to the polls. Yet that way the will of the people is served, its just served when people aren’t looking.
If your trying to get something passed – its a good strategy. That is how they got it passed in KC. Just don’t act like your doing what the people want when you openly admit it would have to do when nobody is looking.
What a ridiculous discussion – there will never again be an airline or train or metro that allows smoking. The day will come when there will not be any smoking of any tobacco product in any public indoor place. When I was a pharmaceutical representative the amphetamines I used to sell were thought not to be harmful but the world woke up to the dangers to both the person and society, and in fact we were taught that they were less addictive than nicotine. Your brain chemistry has been altered so that your thought process are just so much “smoke” and you do not care about the harm this drug does to others.
And the “choice” argument is so much crap – if I want my favorite hamburger I must go to a smoke filled place. Also a person that is desperate to get a job must take what they can, even if it is a smoke filled room. Even myself as a part owner of a restaurant years ago had to endure smoke from patrons because I had partners that smoked.
Smoke at home or in your car.
Reese – the choice arguement is not crap – its just to bad that your favorite burger happens to be made by an owner that allows smoking. Lots of good burgers out there -you should just get over it. Not to mention – that you used to sling dangerous drugs and owned a restaurant that allowed smoking which you did both for money and you want to tell me my brain has been taken over by nicotine. That is truly funny!
What a sad argument.
I’ve never smoked a cigarette once in my life. I lived in Kansas City until last year. Last year they also passed an absurd law that bans smoking in public places “for the children”, you know. Apparently, “for the children” included strip clubs and bars, but of course did not necessarily include casinos unless _all_ other area cities also banned smoking, so as not to disadvantage KC casinos vs their brethren in other nearby cities.
If you don’t see the flawed logic that pro-ban people are using let me elaborate a bit more:
They were more than happy to disadvantage KC area bar owners and strip club owners, but not casinos. What is happening to those bars? Their smoking patrons are now going to Kansas (blech) to spend their money. Some bars in KC have already shut down and moved their operations just across the state line in response.
Wanna ban smoking in family restaurants? Ok. Whatever. But banning smoking in bars, strip clubs, and casinos for adults-only entertainment? Are you kidding me?
There are financial consequences to these absurd bans that pro-ban people either can’t, or are unwilling to grasp.
And lets not forget that there is a growing trend of bars (especially nicer bars, wine bars, etc) that are voluntarily banning smoking on their own. And more power to them. If anything, they should advertise their progressiveness and reap the financial benefit of their enlightenment.
Whether you want the smoking ban or not, let’s just get this over with so we can start dealing with the real important issues. You know, like banning music in all public places. I can’t stand it when my auditory space is infiltrated by that noise that could possibly damage my eardrums. Blech.
Smokers are going to lose. It’s just that simple.
@john w.
Yes, that’s pretty much a given. Thanks for your input?