Poll: Thoughts on St. Louis’ Smoke-free Law [UPDATED]
As of January 2, 2011 most businesses in St. Louis are now smoke-free. Now that we are past the halfway point in the year I’m curious on your thoughts. When the law was debated in 2009 many opposed the law on principal. Some are still fighting the law.
Do you feel differently about the law now? Should we repeal or expand? The poll is in the upper right corner of the blog.
– Steve Patterson
Update @ 7pm on Monday August 15, 2011:
This week’s poll has been closed after only a day & a half, the pro-smoking forces had caused more votes than a typical week.
City Health Director Pamela Walker pushed the ban by hugely overstating the health concerns of secondhand smoke. She said the working 8 hours in a bar that allows smoking was the health equivalent of smoking nearly a pack yourself. And she said that the ban could cut the City heart attack rate up to 40 percent. If either claim was anywhere close to true, even I might favor a smoking ban for St. Louis City.
City Health Director Pamela Walker pushed the ban by hugely overstating the health concerns of secondhand smoke. She said the working 8 hours in a bar that allows smoking was the health equivalent of smoking nearly a pack yourself. And she said that the ban could cut the City heart attack rate up to 40 percent. If either claim was anywhere close to true, even I might favor a smoking ban for St. Louis City.
I like your poll Steve! I’ve been watching smoking ban polls all over the country for years while doing my own research in the area, and far too many of them are deliberately or accidentally slanted toward the antismoking choices. Your “don’t like but like” choice works quite well in helping people voice an opinion that I think many of them feel: Obviously many nonsmokers (who make up about 3/4 of the population) at least slightly enjoy not having as much smoke around them when they’re out eating and drinking. But a lot of them also don’t see a reason why a law has to force it on everyone. You’ve offered that group a voice here.
Unfortunately the mechanics of online polling on this topic are hit way too often by either the funded organizations of the Antismokers or, sometimes, the less effective email lists and website postings of some of the smoker groups. Or, and I’ve seen this happen at least two or three times over the years from the Anti side but never yet from the smokers’ side, hit by hackers who can mount up hundreds of automatic votes an hour. Dunno how well this particular poll is protected for that stuff, but you might want to keep an eye on the numbers for any swings. At just before 8pm here it stands at 14, 10, 6, and 6 … rather against my side of the aisle, but that could be due to just a single cluster of Antis hitting it at the start.
If you’d like to do a **REAL** survery/poll that’s actually meaningful in this area where the big argument usually swings around “protecting the poor workers” I’d be happy to help you design one that would pack some punch and that you could run either for free or with a very limited budget and some footwork: it would involve polling the WORKERS — the ones the Antis claim actually want the ban — and I think you’ll find the results are quite different than people are led to believe. You’ll note that the people with the money for real “Gallup Type” polls NEVER poll the workers before a ban or during the first year or so of a ban: they KNOW they would lose by a landslide. The polling mechanisms I’d be happy to discuss with you would be open and fair, would involve no cost other than that shoe leather if your budget is tight, and running such a poll might give you quite a good story and the results would be difficult to dispute.
Email me at Cantiloper over on AOL if you like.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
I like your poll Steve! I’ve been watching smoking ban polls all over the country for years while doing my own research in the area, and far too many of them are deliberately or accidentally slanted toward the antismoking choices. Your “don’t like but like” choice works quite well in helping people voice an opinion that I think many of them feel: Obviously many nonsmokers (who make up about 3/4 of the population) at least slightly enjoy not having as much smoke around them when they’re out eating and drinking. But a lot of them also don’t see a reason why a law has to force it on everyone. You’ve offered that group a voice here.
Unfortunately the mechanics of online polling on this topic are hit way too often by either the funded organizations of the Antismokers or, sometimes, the less effective email lists and website postings of some of the smoker groups. Or, and I’ve seen this happen at least two or three times over the years from the Anti side but never yet from the smokers’ side, hit by hackers who can mount up hundreds of automatic votes an hour. Dunno how well this particular poll is protected for that stuff, but you might want to keep an eye on the numbers for any swings. At just before 8pm here it stands at 14, 10, 6, and 6 … rather against my side of the aisle, but that could be due to just a single cluster of Antis hitting it at the start.
If you’d like to do a **REAL** survery/poll that’s actually meaningful in this area where the big argument usually swings around “protecting the poor workers” I’d be happy to help you design one that would pack some punch and that you could run either for free or with a very limited budget and some footwork: it would involve polling the WORKERS — the ones the Antis claim actually want the ban — and I think you’ll find the results are quite different than people are led to believe. You’ll note that the people with the money for real “Gallup Type” polls NEVER poll the workers before a ban or during the first year or so of a ban: they KNOW they would lose by a landslide. The polling mechanisms I’d be happy to discuss with you would be open and fair, would involve no cost other than that shoe leather if your budget is tight, and running such a poll might give you quite a good story and the results would be difficult to dispute.
Email me at Cantiloper over on AOL if you like.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Second hand smoke in enclosed areas may have some effect on somebody with health probelms, but would cause no harm whatsoever on ANYBODY in open places.
Second hand smoke in enclosed areas may have some effect on somebody with health probelms, but would cause no harm whatsoever on ANYBODY in open places.
The fact that No Government anywhere can give the names of Anyone who have died as a direct result of passive smoke should give the anti smoking game away i would have thought, so how can anyone give a figure of lives “saved ” when they cannot give a proven figure of lives lost. They are just “claims” without Evidence to back them up. Bans are Bad for Business and Bad for personal Freedoms.
The fact that No Government anywhere can give the names of Anyone who have died as a direct result of passive smoke should give the anti smoking game away i would have thought, so how can anyone give a figure of lives “saved ” when they cannot give a proven figure of lives lost. They are just “claims” without Evidence to back them up. Bans are Bad for Business and Bad for personal Freedoms.
While I agree that the data on deaths from passive smoking is about as convincing as the data on absbestos – no one is exposed to only one, single potential carcinogen in low levels over many years - and we’re all going to die from something, smoking advocates need to remember two big points. One smokers are a minority, making up less than 30% of the adult population, and two, their pleasure / addiction is unpleasant, to some degree, for most non-smokers to be around. In the immortal words of George Carlin, “Mind if I smoke? No, mind if I fart?!” The combination DOES produce increasing popular pressure (majority rule) to limit the number of places smokers are allowed to light up. Whether this is something the government should be doing or whether it should be left up to individual property owners is the core issue in this and in many, many other discussions. Whether it’s smoking, gun control, gay marriage or dog poop, if it bothers you, “there ought to be a law”, and if you need to change, “it’s an infringement on my personal liberties”. The real challenge then becomes is the majority always right? And, in reality, the answer is a fluid, moving target – our values, as a society, are always evolving, and, as individuals, we both need to continue to learn to “play well with others” and to accept, especially in urban areas, that there will always be people, places and activities that we won’t like and probably won’t be able to change. Plus we have limited government resources – do we really want to pay the taxes required the police to be writing lots of tickets for quality of life issues, such as these?
While I agree that the data on deaths from passive smoking is about as convincing as the data on absbestos – no one is exposed to only one, single potential carcinogen in low levels over many years – and we’re all going to die from something, smoking advocates need to remember two big points. One smokers are a minority, making up less than 30% of the adult population, and two, their pleasure / addiction is unpleasant, to some degree, for most non-smokers to be around. In the immortal words of George Carlin, “Mind if I smoke? No, mind if I fart?!” The combination DOES produce increasing popular pressure (majority rule) to limit the number of places smokers are allowed to light up. Whether this is something the government should be doing or whether it should be left up to individual property owners is the core issue in this and in many, many other discussions. Whether it’s smoking, gun control, gay marriage or dog poop, if it bothers you, “there ought to be a law”, and if you need to change, “it’s an infringement on my personal liberties”. The real challenge then becomes is the majority always right? And, in reality, the answer is a fluid, moving target – our values, as a society, are always evolving, and, as individuals, we both need to continue to learn to “play well with others” and to accept, especially in urban areas, that there will always be people, places and activities that we won’t like and probably won’t be able to change. Plus we have limited government resources – do we really want to pay the taxes required the police to be writing lots of tickets for quality of life issues, such as these?
Nonsmokers, like anyone else, have the right to choose to be in a smokeless or smoking environment. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else’s right to choose as well?
Court houses, publicly-owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should be included in any smoking law.
What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by law to frequent or work at that specific location.Â
Nonsmokers, like anyone else, have the right to choose to be in a smokeless or smoking environment. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else’s right to choose as well?
Court houses, publicly-owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should be included in any smoking law.
What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by law to frequent or work at that specific location.
A truer poll would be amongst the owners, workers and customers
They are the ones who are directly affected by the smoking ban
http://fightingback.homestead.com
A truer poll would be amongst the owners, workers and customers
They are the ones who are directly affected by the smoking ban
http://fightingback.homestead.com
Maybe but many non-smokers aren’t customers because of smokers. Smoke outside and get over it.
The law is actually doing private property owners a favor. There is no reason to believe that future litigation for damages suffered while working in a cigarette smoke filled environment can be avoided.
The law is actually doing private property owners a favor. There is no reason to believe that future litigation for damages suffered while working in a cigarette smoke filled environment can be avoided.
But they would have to show that damage was caused by ETS. I don’t think they can do that.
But they would have to show that damage was caused by ETS. I don’t think they can do that.
Some excellent comments/thoughts here! Hope Steve and the STL powers-that-be get to see them.
Guest, Bill is correct. The “lawsuit threat” is a paper tiger created by the Antismokers to frighten owners and increase support for smoking bans.  Philip Morris screwed up when they settled the “Airline Flight Attendants” lawsuit years ago: I doubt they would have lost if they’d fought it but they must have done something improper enough along the way that they could have gotten hit with criminal charges or something if it had extended. But by settling it they opened up the ambulance-chasing bandwagon as there are now lawyers all over the place willing to put hours into “hopeless” cases simply on the off chance that they’ll luck out somehow and win a multi-multi-million dollar lawsuit.
To show how hard it would be to win: Lung cancer is one of the strongest cases the Antismokers have in the area of ETS exposure, but even if you accept the EPA’s figures on it (a 19% increase over the base nonsmoking lifetime rate of about 4 in a 1,000 after 40 years of daily exposure) you still end up with an average of just one lung cancer for every 40,000 worker-years of exposure. Not quite a “smoking gun” that an average small employer is likely to worry about unless he/she has been hoodwinked by the propaganda out there, particularly since probably only about one of a hundred bar workers ends up working largely for just one employer for 40 years.
It’s a good pressure/scare tactic though, and that’s why it’s used.
– MJM
Some excellent comments/thoughts here! Hope Steve and the STL powers-that-be get to see them.
Guest, Bill is correct. The “lawsuit threat” is a paper tiger created by the Antismokers to frighten owners and increase support for smoking bans. Philip Morris screwed up when they settled the “Airline Flight Attendants” lawsuit years ago: I doubt they would have lost if they’d fought it but they must have done something improper enough along the way that they could have gotten hit with criminal charges or something if it had extended. But by settling it they opened up the ambulance-chasing bandwagon as there are now lawyers all over the place willing to put hours into “hopeless” cases simply on the off chance that they’ll luck out somehow and win a multi-multi-million dollar lawsuit.
To show how hard it would be to win: Lung cancer is one of the strongest cases the Antismokers have in the area of ETS exposure, but even if you accept the EPA’s figures on it (a 19% increase over the base nonsmoking lifetime rate of about 4 in a 1,000 after 40 years of daily exposure) you still end up with an average of just one lung cancer for every 40,000 worker-years of exposure. Not quite a “smoking gun” that an average small employer is likely to worry about unless he/she has been hoodwinked by the propaganda out there, particularly since probably only about one of a hundred bar workers ends up working largely for just one employer for 40 years.
It’s a good pressure/scare tactic though, and that’s why it’s used.
– MJM
The Japanese eat five times the amount of cruciferous vegetables — cabbages, broccoli, radishes, cauliflower, kale and other crunchy greens — than Americans. This huge dietary difference may help explain why Japan has a far lower rate of certain kinds of cancers than cruciferous-avoiding Americans. This class of vegetables contain high levels of glucosinolates, substances that break down to form cancer-fighting chemicals called indolates, which can help lower rates of breast, ovarian, lung and colon cancers. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/006…
Japan has a much higher rate of smoking that the USA
The Japanese eat five times the amount of cruciferous vegetables — cabbages, broccoli, radishes, cauliflower, kale and other crunchy greens — than Americans. This huge dietary difference may help explain why Japan has a far lower rate of certain kinds of cancers than cruciferous-avoiding Americans. This class of vegetables contain high levels of glucosinolates, substances that break down to form cancer-fighting chemicals called indolates, which can help lower rates of breast, ovarian, lung and colon cancers. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/006…
Japan has a much higher rate of smoking that the USA
The Japanese eat five times the amount of cruciferous vegetables — cabbages, broccoli, radishes, cauliflower, kale and other crunchy greens — than Americans. This huge dietary difference may help explain why Japan has a far lower rate of certain kinds of cancers than cruciferous-avoiding Americans. This class of vegetables contain high levels of glucosinolates, substances that break down to form cancer-fighting chemicals called indolates, which can help lower rates of breast, ovarian, lung and colon cancers. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/006…
Japan has a much higher rate of smoking than the USA
WTF—What do you mean poll closed due to high numbers?We are supposed to voice are feelings and then you slam the f—-n door in my face??? And you wonder why people dont rally around and participate.!!!!!
WTF—What do you mean poll closed due to high numbers?We are supposed to voice are feelings and then you slam the f—-n door in my face??? And you wonder why people dont rally around and participate.!!!!!
I’ve never before closed a poll but it became very obvious the results were excessive in numbers, I was not getting the view of my regular readership.
Steve, I’m sure you’re quite correct about the “regular readership” part: you wrote on a topic that would attract new readers. I would have thought that’s what a columnist would want?
I notice you made no response to my suggestion for having an honest, low/no budget randomized poll of bar workers, the ones the ban is supposed to be for, as to how they felt about the ban.
Perhaps you missed my posting on it?
– MJM
I’ve never before closed a poll but it became very obvious the results were excessive in numbers, I was not getting the view of my regular readership.
Steve, I’m sure you’re quite correct about the “regular readership” part: you wrote on a topic that would attract new readers. I would have thought that’s what a columnist would want?Â
I notice you made no response to my suggestion for having an honest, low/no budget randomized poll of bar workers, the ones the ban is supposed to be for, as to how they felt about the ban.
Perhaps you missed my posting on it?
– MJM
The primary flaw in the promotion of smoking bans in the media is that all the arguments and research tend to be of the philosophical variety using a philosophers little glass ball, they actually refer to as epidemiology, with no physical or biological scientific opinions allowed. Just as a politician can hire someone to write a speech that can move millions, so too can the same people be hired to turn us against each other [in this case to sell smoking patches that have a success rate somewhere between snake oil and sugar pills]when there is something to gain by the effort. Few of the Public health philosophers have the expertise or training to understand what they are promoting and what will be the actual long term affects, but when it comes to rallying a cause, that is their specialty to be sure. What I find most repulsive about the long term promotions of hatred and bigotry, by influencing the denormalization the personal autonomy laws, is the question of who will be paying their bills in the next round, of sky is falling technologies.And who will be the next target of their moral outrage?
Second hand smoke is harmless and if you don’t believe that, light a cigarette in a room full of lobbyists and take note of how many of them run.
The Emperor has no clothes, and he has just stolen your wallet.
The primary flaw in the promotion of smoking bans in the media is that all the arguments and research tend to be of the philosophical variety using a philosophers little glass ball, they actually refer to as epidemiology, with no physical or biological scientific opinions allowed. Just as a politician can hire someone to write a speech that can move millions, so too can the same people be hired to turn us against each other [in this case to sell smoking patches that have a success rate somewhere between snake oil and sugar pills]when there is something to gain by the effort. Few of the Public health philosophers have the expertise or training to understand what they are promoting and what will be the actual long term affects, but when it comes to rallying a cause, that is their specialty to be sure. What I find most repulsive about the long term promotions of hatred and bigotry, by influencing the denormalization the personal autonomy laws, is the question of who will be paying their bills in the next round, of sky is falling technologies.And who will be the next target of their moral outrage?
Second hand smoke is harmless and if you don’t believe that, light a cigarette in a room full of lobbyists and take note of how many of them run.
The Emperor has no clothes, and he has just stolen your wallet.
Yes, whether or not second-hand smoke is “harmless” is hard to “prove”, and yes, there’s an underlying political agenda to the studies being quoted, on both sides. That’s because second-hand smoke is stinky, smelly, obnoxious and, at times, gagging. The question really is where does your apparent enjoyment, as a smoker, end? And where does my enjoyment, as a non-smoker start? I really don’t care what you choose to put in your body, I care about what comes out, since I’m not being given the same choice, other than to leave . . .
1. Epidemiology is a pretty legitimate scientific field, relies on findings from other scientific disciplines, and helps to establish correlation and causality of exposures/behaviors and health outcomes. Your characterization is insulting to me, as a public health professional.
2. Second hand smoke is responsible for the death of over 40,000 people annually in America, including hundreds of SIDS deaths. Until infants have the freedom to choose whether or not to be exposed to second hand smoke, your argument is moot.
Hatred and bigotry? The tobacco industry has been targeting low income and minority communities for years.
Alissa, I don’t know if Kevin will wander back this way, so I hope you won’t mind my jumping in.
1) Epidemiology is a pretty legitimate scientific field when it is used in the service of science. When it is perverted to support political goals its legitimacy is lost. In the area of arguments concerning secondary smoke exposure I believe it has been strongly perverted in that way.
2a) Alissa, your 40,000 number is questionable to say the least: most of that number comes from cardiovascular deaths and the kind of science used to support that argument is so weak that for years the American Heart Association was not even used as a reference: the CHD deaths from ETS were always ascribed to the ACS!
2b) Your argument on SIDS might apply if young babies were being housed throughout their days and nights in bars. In Philadelphia this is something I don’t think I’ve ever seen, although it’s possible things are a bit different in STL. The SIDS connection for 24 hours/day 7 days/week exposure is weak enough that a few years ago one of the major SIDS foundations demanded that the antismoking groups stop making such claims. That may have changed, but it would still leave the overall evidence as weak.
3) The tobacco industry targeted their consumers in exactly the same way every other industry targets their consumers. Try substituting McWhopperies for tobacco companies in your statement and see how well the shoe fits. Think of the children being targeted by the alcohol advertising with the big cuddly horses and cute little doggies at the Superbowl and World Series games and the teens being targeted with candy flavored liquors and sexy Detroit Death Machines. Big Tobacco MAY have been worse — but it’s marginal.
Alissa, Google “V.Gen5H” click on the “Health Arguments” link, and read “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” and you’ll see where some of my skepticism comes from. Feel free to offer any specific substantive criticisms of it that you may have. I won’t mind.
– MJM
A suspicious high number of votes has closed the poll? How convenient! Did it ever occur to you that many if not most non-smokers could care less one way or the other about having to smell second hand smoke and this is why you’re not getting any attention or voting from them on your post and poll? It is the smokers and the property owners who are mostly affected and it is quite normal that such issues get more visits from what you call the ”pro-smoking forces” when given the rare opportunity to express themselves freely. Bad move for democratic values to close a poll because it is not attracting the ”right” kind of people, sheeesh!Â
A suspicious high number of votes has closed the poll? How convenient! Did it ever occur to you that many if not most non-smokers could care less one way or the other about having to smell second hand smoke and this is why you’re not getting any attention or voting from them on your post and poll? It is the smokers and the property owners who are mostly affected and it is quite normal that such issues get more visits from what you call the ”pro-smoking forces” when given the rare opportunity to express themselves freely. Bad move for democratic values to close a poll because it is not attracting the ”right” kind of people, sheeesh!
I like to get the pulse of the everyday reader, not be bombarded by one side of one issue. I didn’t like having to close a poll for the first time, but I really didn’t appreciate the attempts to sway the results.
With networking sites such as facebook and others, you will have to get used to getting an unusual number of readers who are interested in particular issues. And those affected by any particular situation will be there commenting and voting. It is obvious the rest of them are not affected enough to care to either pay you a visit or vote.
“many if not most non-smokers could care less one way or the other about having to smell second hand smoke” No, we care, but we vote where it counts, for real laws, not by cramming votes in some minor, unscientific poll in the blogosphere. And if we “didn’t care”, why would smokers be feeling threatened by ever-more restrictions?!
Exactly, these weekly polls are the poster child for unscientific anyway. Then to have one group bombard the poll just reduces the value to zero. Yeah, I hope they tell the journals, they will get a good laugh.
When you got busy body legislators and the mainstream media on your side it is very easy to ignore blogosphere polls, albeit we have seen exactly that happen with the anti-smoker forces hacking the polls and outrageously affecting the results
If most non-smokers did not like the situation pre-bans, the free market would have taken care of the problem without government interference. All that was needed was for intolerant to smoke non-smokers to stop going to places that were uncomfortable for them. Property owners who would have lost business would have been forced to either become non-smoking or install proper ventilation on their own free will to save their businesses. The reason it didn’t happen is evidently because most non-smokers are either a) tolerant b) mostly too lazy to do something about getting the market forces to change.
I’ll repeat, I’m a libertarian at heart. I voted for the “I’m no fan of the law, but I like that more places are now non-smoking” option. Smoking creates a unique dynamic – your pleasure/addiction expands way beyond your own body and your own immediate personal space and, if we’re in the same space, very quickly impinges on MY body and MY personal space. The question then simply becomes who gets to be the decider? Should you be forced outside so I can enjoy a smoke-free space? Or, should I tolerate / accept that tobacco smoke in an enclosed space is perfectly acceptable, or be forced outside myself, so you can smoke inside? Whose “right” is more right? More important? Righter? Remember, this has nothing to do with medical necessity, it has all to do about individual pleasure!
I agree, in a perfect world, the market would respond, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Most businesses want to attract as many customers as possible, so they, individually, attempt to restrict as few potential customers as possible. The unfortunate reality is that smokers are a distinct minority, yet leave a much bigger olfactory footprint than non-smokers do, making legislative restrictions both necessary and doable. And in my perfect world, we wouldn’t be doing this at the local level, we’d be restricting smoking at the state or national level, to provide a “level playing field” for all businesses, in the same way we regulate alcohol. And, ideally, we’d end the hypocrisy of heavily taxing a known carinogen and just outlaw the damn product all together!
A libertarian at heart believes in the market forces. Obviously your olfactory preferences cloud your libertarian mind. I do agree that the smell of smoke can be annoying to some and even to many, but I can’t possibly believe that it is that annoying to most people because if it were the market forces would have looked after the problem well before today. If I can’t stand the smell of fried food (which I can’t) I will simply not go to fast food joints (and I don’t).
If non-smoking is what the majority were waiting for to get them out of their homes and into the hospitality industry as the anti-smokers seem to want us to believe, business owners would have absolutely nothing to worry about going smoke-free as it would be better for business. What business owner doesn’t want a new formula which will allow their business to grow and thrive? But that is not what is happening mostly anywhere and everywhere smoking bans were enacted. From this, it is very easy to conclude that most non-smokers don’t mind sharing the same space as smokers providing the ventilation is sufficient to reasonably contain the smoke and the smell.
Nevertheless, there is a way for both non-smokers and smokers to have separate venues to cater to each group’s social preferences, but the anti-smoking cartel won’t have it! Why? Because these legislations have absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s health or preferences and everything to do with Gigantic Pharma and their mouthpieces – the professional anti-smokers – stigmatizing 25% of the population in an effort to force them to stop preferrably using their virtually useless products…over and over and over.
So, you’re arguing against majority rule, the cornerstone of our democracy and republic, and you’re arguing for anyone being able to impose their personal preferences in public places, as long as the owner doesn’t object? That your opinion, as a member of a minority, is more valid than my opinion, as a member of the majority?
I am arguing that noone, smoker or non-smoker should be allowed to demand that a property owner caters to their preferences. You don’t like what the business has to offer, stay out. That is what the republic was built on, not on mob rule. The libertarian philosophy fully supports just that, providing of course one’s liberty does no harm to another. The only reason these legislations have passed is because they were based on a manufactured ”public health” emergency which is at best not evidence based at worst a lie. True public places is a whole different story. If your taxes are paying for them you can democratically vote as to
how you want them managed.
You state that “The libertarian philosophy fully supports [personal freedom], providing of course one’s liberty does no harm to another.” You also state that “the smell of smoke can be annoying to some and even to many”. So I guess it’s safe to conclude that “no harm” does not include “being annoying”?!
Annoyance does not equal harm otherwise we would have to deal with legislating behaviour in much more than just second hand smoke, starting with annoying rabid anti-smokers who like dictating how other people should live their lives and how business people should run their business.
In a perfect world you would not be allowed to leave your smoke-free environment, get into your car and pollute my outdoor air with your exhaust.
Vehicular exhaust is way less stinky and gagging than tobacco smoke. And in my perfect world, it would not be your ashtray!
So, in your perfect world, there would be no internal-combustion engines and no coal-fired power plants?! How do you think the tobacco producers would be able to get their precious cigarettes into your nicotine-stained fingers? Bicycle messenger? Mule-drawn towboat? Teamsters using Clydesdales? Get real – for the vast majority of us, going fossil-fuel-free isn’t a choice; smkoing truly is!
I like to get the pulse of the everyday reader, not be bombarded by one side of one issue. I didn’t like having to close a poll for the first time, but I really didn’t appreciate the attempts to sway the results.
Yes, whether or not second-hand smoke is “harmless” is hard to “prove”, and yes, there’s an underlying political agenda to the studies being quoted, on both sides.  That’s because second-hand smoke is stinky, smelly, obnoxious and, at times, gagging. The question really is where does your apparent enjoyment, as a smoker, end? And where does my enjoyment, as a non-smoker start? I really don’t care what you choose to put in your body, I care about what comes out, since I’m not being given the same choice, other than to leave . . .
I am forwarding this article to all professional journalists I know. The ones who have seen it all ready are chuckling big time over your closing your own poll! Actually, that’s a bigger story! And I am just flat out laughing!
I am forwarding this article to all professional journalists I know. The ones who have seen it all ready are chuckling big time over your closing your own poll! Actually, that’s a bigger story! And I am just flat out laughing!
Boooo! Conspiracy! Intrigue! Steve Patterson closed his poll, on his blog, early! Horrible! A violation of my First Amendment rights–except it’s not. Boy, the “libertarian” rats really come out of the woodwork for the smoking thing. You people are a hoot. You are not a protected population, you are not “persecuted”; the only harm coming to you is not being able to light up anywhere you want, any time you want. You have a nasty, filthy, unhealthy and possibly fatal addiction, and society is just frankly finished with putting up with it. Hey, I’m sorry that you succumbed to the Marketing/PR(opaganda) directed against society in order to get you to smoke. Sorry that you are now addicted. But as far as tolerating your putrescent exhaust, we don’t have to do that anymore. Just as we made laws to regulate the effluent coming out of industrial plants because of the noxious and often toxic contents, so do we now limit your ability to pollute the lungs of other human beings with the myriad of chemicals your fix is giving off. Biggest bunch of crybabies I’ve ever seen, second only to the “Christians” who think they’re being persecuted because, at least technically, they can’t pollute young minds with their crap in public schools, or put up a display in front of public-owned space at Christmas. Whiners all.
“many if not most non-smokers could care less one way or the other about having to smell second hand smoke” No, we care, but we vote where it counts, for real laws, not by cramming votes in some minor, unscientific poll in the blogosphere. And if we “didn’t care”, why would smokers be feeling threatened by ever-more restrictions?!
Exactly, these weekly polls are the poster child for unscientific anyway. Then to have one group bombard the poll just reduces the value to zero. Yeah, I hope they tell the journals, they will get a good laugh.
 When you got busy body legislators and the mainstream media on your side it is very easy to ignore blogosphere polls, albeit we have seen exactly that happen with the anti-smoker forces hacking the polls and outrageously affecting the results
If most non-smokers did not like the situation pre-bans, the free market would have taken care of the problem without government interference. All that was needed was for intolerant to smoke non-smokers to stop going to places that were uncomfortable for them. Property owners who would have lost business would have been forced to either become non-smoking or install proper ventilation on their own free will to save their businesses. The reason it didn’t happen is evidently because most non-smokers are either a) tolerant b) mostly too lazy to do something about getting the market forces to change.Â
 With networking sites such as facebook and others, you will have to get used to getting an unusual number of readers who are interested in particular issues. And those affected by any particular situation will be there commenting and voting. It is obvious the rest of them are not affected enough to care to either pay you a visit or vote. Â
I’ll repeat, I’m a libertarian at heart. I voted for the “I’m no fan of the law, but I like that more places are now non-smoking” option. Smoking creates a unique dynamic – your pleasure/addiction expands way beyond your own body and your own immediate personal space and, if we’re in the same space, very quickly impinges on MY body and MY personal space. The question then simply becomes who gets to be the decider? Should you be forced outside so I can enjoy a smoke-free space? Or, should I tolerate / accept that tobacco smoke in an enclosed space is perfectly acceptable, or be forced outside myself, so you can smoke inside? Whose “right” is more right? More important? Righter? Remember, this has nothing to do with medical necessity, it has all to do about individual pleasure!Â
I agree, in a perfect world, the market would respond, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Most businesses want to attract as many customers as possible, so they, individually, attempt to restrict as few potential customers as possible. The unfortunate reality is that smokers are a distinct minority, yet leave a much bigger olfactory footprint than non-smokers do, making legislative restrictions both necessary and doable. And in my perfect world, we wouldn’t be doing this at the local level, we’d be restricting smoking at the state or national level, to provide a “level playing field” for all businesses, in the same way we regulate alcohol. And, ideally, we’d end the hypocrisy of heavily taxing a known carinogen and just outlaw the damn product all together!
A libertarian at heart believes in the market forces. Obviously your olfactory preferences cloud your libertarian mind. I do agree that the smell of smoke can be annoying to some and even to many, but I can’t possibly believe that it is that annoying to most people because if it were the market forces would have looked after the problem well before today. If I can’t stand the smell of fried food (which I can’t) I will simply not go to fast food joints (and I don’t).Â
If non-smoking is what the majority were waiting for to get them out of their homes and into the hospitality industry as the anti-smokers seem to want us to believe, business owners would have absolutely nothing to worry about going smoke-free as it would be better for business. What business owner doesn’t want a new formula which will allow their business to grow and thrive? But that is not what is happening mostly anywhere and everywhere smoking bans were enacted. From this, it is very easy to conclude that most non-smokers don’t mind sharing the same space as smokers providing the ventilation is sufficient to reasonably contain the smoke and the smell.Â
Nevertheless, there is a way for both non-smokers and smokers to have separate venues to cater to each group’s social preferences, but the anti-smoking cartel won’t have it! Why? Because these legislations have absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s health or preferences and everything to do with Gigantic Pharma and their mouthpieces – the professional anti-smokers – stigmatizing 25% of the population in an effort to force them to stop preferrably using their virtually useless products…over and over and over.  Â
As a non smoker myself I can appreciate going into a business and not having to deal with smoke. However, I realize not everyone feels the way I do and it wouldn’t be fair for me to say just because I don’t smoke other people shouldn’t be able to. Therefore, I believe it should be up to the individual business owner whether they allow smoking or not. Too much government involvement in business is bad.
As a non smoker myself I can appreciate going into a business and not having to deal with smoke. However, I realize not everyone feels the way I do and it wouldn’t be fair for me to say just because I don’t smoke other people shouldn’t be able to. Therefore, I believe it should be up to the individual business owner whether they allow smoking or not. Too much government involvement in business is bad.
So, you’re arguing against majority rule, the cornerstone of our democracy and republic, and you’re arguing for anyone being able to impose their personal preferences in public places, as long as the owner doesn’t object? That your opinion, as a member of a minority, is more valid than my opinion, as a member of the majority?
 I am arguing that noone, smoker or non-smoker should be allowed to demand that a property owner caters to their preferences. You don’t like what the business has to offer, stay out. That is what the republic was built on, not on mob rule. The libertarian philosophy fully supports just that, providing of course one’s liberty does no harm to another. The only reason these legislations have passed is because they were based on a manufactured ”public health” emergency which is at best not evidence based at worst a lie. True public places is a whole different story. If your taxes are paying for them you can democratically vote as to
how you want them managed.
In a perfect world you would not be allowed to leave your smoke-free environment, get into your car and pollute my outdoor air with your exhaust.
You state that “The libertarian philosophy fully supports [personal freedom], providing of course one’s liberty does no harm to another.” You also state that “the smell of smoke can be annoying to some and even to many”. So I guess it’s safe to conclude that “no harm” does not include “being annoying”?!
Vehicular exhaust is way less stinky and gagging than tobacco smoke. And in my perfect world, it would not be your ashtray!
Annoyance does not equal harm otherwise we would have to deal with legislating behaviour in much more than just second hand smoke, starting with annoying rabid anti-smokers who like dictating how other people should live their lives and how business people should run their business.Â
Boooo! Conspiracy! Intrigue! Steve Patterson closed his poll, on his blog, early! Horrible! A violation of my First Amendment rights–except it’s not. Boy, the “libertarian” rats really come out of the woodwork for the smoking thing. You people are a hoot. You are not a protected population, you are not “persecuted”; the only harm coming to you is not being able to light up anywhere you want, any time you want. You have a nasty, filthy, unhealthy and possibly fatal addiction, and society is just frankly finished with putting up with it. Hey, I’m sorry that you succumbed to the Marketing/PR(opaganda) directed against society in order to get you to smoke. Sorry that you are now addicted. But as far as tolerating your putrescent exhaust, we don’t have to do that anymore. Just as we made laws to regulate the effluent coming out of industrial plants because of the noxious and often toxic contents, so do we now limit your ability to pollute the lungs of other human beings with the myriad of chemicals your fix is giving off. Biggest bunch of crybabies I’ve ever seen, second only to the “Christians” who think they’re being persecuted because, at least technically, they can’t pollute young minds with their crap in public schools, or put up a display in front of public-owned space at Christmas. Whiners all.
Maybe but many non-smokers aren’t customers because of smokers. Smoke outside and get over it.
The ban is a bit of smoke anyway. There was a large bar and grill near me in South City flouting the ban so I called the Citizens Service Bureau to file a complaint. Four months later the Health Dept finally went there in the morning and closed the case as unresolved since they were closed when the inspector visited. Why try to inspect a bar when they are closed? They also didn’t comment on whether the bar had the mandated signage describing whether smoking is allowed near the entries.
A side effect seems to be that small bars yet unaffected by the ban are enjoying more patronage by smokers. The closest small bar to my house (which was barely tolerable before) is now a stinking ashtray. I grab an occasional drink at Pueblo Solis instead where I don’t end up having to dry-clean my coat afterward to get the cigarette smell out.
The ban is a bit of smoke anyway. There was a large bar and grill near me in South City flouting the ban so I called the Citizens Service Bureau to file a complaint. Four months later the Health Dept finally went there in the morning and closed the case as unresolved since they were closed when the inspector visited. Why try to inspect a bar when they are closed? They also didn’t comment on whether the bar had the mandated signage describing whether smoking is allowed near the entries.
A side effect seems to be that small bars yet unaffected by the ban are enjoying more patronage by smokers. The closest small bar to my house (which was barely tolerable before) is now a stinking ashtray. I grab an occasional drink at Pueblo Solis instead where I don’t end up having to dry-clean my coat afterward to get the cigarette smell out.
So, in your perfect world, there would be no internal-combustion engines and no coal-fired power plants?! How do you think the tobacco producers would be able to get their precious cigarettes into your nicotine-stained fingers? Bicycle messenger? Mule-drawn towboat? Teamsters using Clydesdales? Get real – for the vast majority of us, going fossil-fuel-free isn’t a choice; smkoing truly is!
1. Epidemiology is a pretty legitimate scientific field, relies on findings from other scientific disciplines, and helps to establish correlation and causality of exposures/behaviors and health outcomes. Your characterization is insulting to me, as a public health professional.
2. Second hand smoke is responsible for the death of over 40,000 people annually in America, including hundreds of SIDS deaths. Until infants have the freedom to choose whether or not to be exposed to second hand smoke, your argument is moot.
Hatred and bigotry? The tobacco industry has been targeting low income and minority communities for years.
Alissa, I don’t know if Kevin will wander back this way, so I hope you won’t mind my jumping in.
1) Epidemiology is a pretty legitimate scientific field when it is used in the service of science. When it is perverted to support political goals its legitimacy is lost. In the area of arguments concerning secondary smoke exposure I believe it has been strongly perverted in that way.
2a) Alissa, your 40,000 number is questionable to say the least: most of that number comes from cardiovascular deaths and the kind of science used to support that argument is so weak that for years the American Heart Association was not even used as a reference: the CHD deaths from ETS were always ascribed to the ACS!
2b) Your argument on SIDS might apply if young babies were being housed throughout their days and nights in bars. In Philadelphia this is something I don’t think I’ve ever seen, although it’s possible things are a bit different in STL. The SIDS connection for 24 hours/day 7 days/week exposure is weak enough that a few years ago one of the major SIDS foundations demanded that the antismoking groups stop making such claims. That may have changed, but it would still leave the overall evidence as weak.
3) The tobacco industry targeted their consumers in exactly the same way every other industry targets their consumers. Try substituting McWhopperies for tobacco companies in your statement and see how well the shoe fits. Think of the children being targeted by the alcohol advertising with the big cuddly horses and cute little doggies at the Superbowl and World Series games and the teens being targeted with candy flavored liquors and sexy Detroit Death Machines. Big Tobacco MAY have been worse — but it’s marginal.
Alissa, Google “V.Gen5H” click on the “Health Arguments” link, and read “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” and you’ll see where some of my skepticism comes from. Feel free to offer any specific substantive criticisms of it that you may have. I won’t mind.
– MJM