Should State Government be Able to Ban Smoking?

Published on February 17, 2009 By JillUser In Politics

A conversation I had with a friend on Facebook inspired me to write about this subject. He had joined a movement urging the state of Michigan to ban smoking in businesses including bars and restaurants. I for one would be ecstatic if everyone stopped smoking altogether but I don't think the government should have that power over businesses.

First of all, smoking is legal. Why should the government be able to tell a business owner that they can't have something legal occurring in their establishment? I told my friend this is a very slippery slope. He agreed but said that it is one we need to approach. So what's next? Will businesses that serve alcohol be required to obtain a person's car keys or give proof of an alternative mode of transportation before serving them alcohol?

This is already happening in some states but I think this is certainly not the time for Michigan to give it a whirl. Our economy is about the worst out there. If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada, Ohio or elsewhere out of state for their business or they'll just stay at home and drink and smoke. The other outcome would be the bars would ignore the new restriction, get hit with a fine and end up out of business.

I say if smoking is legal it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow it. If they want to exclude the smokers, that's their right but if they need the smokers or even want them, why shouldn't they if it is a legal activity? Anyone who has a problem with smoke need not visit the establishment.

I'll be interested to hear others opinions on the subject.

Comments (Page 13)

181

Leauki

on Feb 23, 2009

I agree ours is a highly modified form of democratic government, at least in the common use of the term.

It's an interesting subject.

The US are more democratic than the UK. In the US both the executive branch and the legislative branch (both houses) are elected. In the UK the executive branch is not elected (although its cabinet usually, but not necessarily, relies on a majority in the legislative) and only one house of the legislative is elected.

182

CharlesCS

on Feb 23, 2009

Wow, am impressed this argument is still going. 2 different points of view both with valid points. I guess it all boils down to the % of people who believe in one over the other. Can't always win them all, right Leauki?

183

taltamir

on Feb 23, 2009

People voluntarily go to concerts where the volume is ridiculously high, though. And use mp3 players at high volume. And do a variety of other things without ear protection. Should the feds step in and set federally mandated decibel limits for concerts & mp3 players, and create yet another federal department to enforce them? We're getting close to the point where there will be more regulators than regulated as it is.

The legally required cameras in your bathroom are for your own protection... not from muggers, we took care of that by implanting tracking chips in people... from yourself, in case you wish to commit suicide.

184

aeortar

on Feb 23, 2009

my anecdotal experience is the opposite. Lots of examples of alternate-generation smokers. Don't know what studies have shown in terms of actual data, though

Having a quick glance around here's one study relating to that: http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2009/02/05/children-more-likely-to-smoke-if-parents-light-up-cigarettes/

Here's the relevant extract:

[the study] found that children who were 12 or young when their parents were smoking were 3.6 times more likely to smoke later in life than kids who had parents who were non-smokers

It makes logical sense as well - if you're growing up in a house filled with smoke, you're going to suffer some second hand smoke, which just by itself would make you more likely to want to smoke I'd have thought, even before factoring in that you may look up to your parents and view it as more acceptable behaviour to smoke if they do.

I still think the example of loud music is a good one. It damages your hearing. It's legal. Should the gov be able to ban it for our own good? What's the difference?

Playing music so load that it damages the hearing of anyone nearby should be illegal in the case of an individual. Obviously it should be legal if for a business/venue where the sole purpose of that place is to play loud music, since people will come there for the music - a bit like people go to the pub to drink (which will harm them, but should still be legal). As for playing loud music that damages the hearing of people in a pub, I don't know of any pubs that allow their customers to do this (while pubs that provide such music are doing it as part of their 'services', which is a critical difference). I also wouldn't want to have my hearing damaged by a neighbours loud music - once the noise reaches excessive levels, there is a strong case for making it illegal since then it isn't just impacting on the person with the loud noise, but also on all their neighbours, and a line has to be drawn somewhere (it shouldn't be legal to make a constant noise so loud that you can't hear yourself think let alone speak if within 1 mile of the vicinity in a residential area, for example, and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise).

Who is going to enforce the ban?

Easy - at the most basic level you can have the punishment as a fine, allow anyone to report an offending pub/other public place, and then enforcement officers can respond, level the fine if needed, and cover the costs of the whole enforcement system. Assuming that the fine is enforced, that then means that the business owners look to prevent it to avoid receiving the fine.

185

Daiwa

on Feb 23, 2009

The legally required cameras in your bathroom are for your own protection

Good 'un.

186

namgreb

on Feb 23, 2009

The original focus of this blog was whether our government should be able to prohibit smoking, a legal activity, in private business establishments. It now appears to have evolved into, or is being confused with, a discussion about whether smoking should be criminalized. These are 2 very different issues. I'm not arguing that smoking should be legal, I don't smoke, hate 2nd hand smoke, and avoid restaurants and bars where smoking is allowed. But, at this point, smoking IS legal in the US and I'm arguing that, as long as it IS legal, our government should stay out of our private lives. And since my private business is an extension of my private life I don't want Uncle Sam telling me how I, or my guests (customers) should behave in my domain. If somebody doesn't like my habits they are free to leave my property. Just my opinion as an American.

187

JillUser

on Feb 23, 2009

Well said namgreb!

188

MasonM

on Feb 23, 2009

Leauki

reply 10

And I resent any adults that behave like children. Personal responsibility does not end when it can only be enforced by governments, and arguments against government intervention do not convince me when the government only intervened because individuals keep refusing to act like responsible human beings.

What's childish is going into a place that you know full well permits smoking and then whining about the smoking.

Responsible adults make their own choices about what businesses they choose to enter.

189

JillUser

on Feb 23, 2009

What's childish is going into a place that you know full well permits smoking and then whining about the smoking.
Responsible adults make their own choices about what businesses they choose to enter.

Amen to that!

190

taltamir

on Feb 23, 2009

What's childish is going into a place that you know full well permits smoking and then whining about the smoking.

Sorry to nit pick but: Unless that place happens to be somewhere you have to go to and not a social club you choose to attend. Bars aren't the only business in question.

191

MasonM

on Feb 23, 2009

taltamir

reply 15

What's childish is going into a place that you know full well permits smoking and then whining about the smoking.
Sorry to nit pick but: Unless that place happens to be somewhere you have to go to and not a social club you choose to attend. Bars aren't the only business in question.

So don't go to them. Money talks.

192

taltamir

on Feb 24, 2009

read that again... when you are not CHOOSING to go there... ex: school, government offices, etc... its not your choice, you must attend.

193

Leauki

on Feb 24, 2009

It now appears to have evolved into, or is being confused with, a discussion about whether smoking should be criminalized.

Some people keep confusing the issue of not being allowed to do harm to others with the more general issue of not being allowed to do anything at all.

I thought it was an attempt to create a strawman.

194

namgreb

on Feb 24, 2009

"Some people keep confusing the issue of not being allowed to do harm to others with the more general issue of not being allowed to do anything at all."

But I'm not one of them, I'm only concerned with allowing the US government to get involved in the private lives of it's citizens who are engaging in legal behavior. And at this time smoking IS legal. If enough scientific data exists showing a link between second hand or slipstream smoke and serious health issues then our government needs to do what we pay it for and pass a law criminalizing this behavior. That would protect the true victims of smokers, children in homes and cars with the doors and windows shut! Unlike consenting adults in smoky bars and restaurants they have no choice! Now what do you think the chances are of that ever happening

195

Leauki

on Feb 24, 2009

But I'm not one of them, I'm only concerned with allowing the US government to get involved in the private lives of it's citizens who are engaging in legal behavior.

That doesn't mean anything.

It's a redundant or tautological statement. "Government should not interfere with legal behaviour." Grand.

We ALL agree with that. The question remains, which behaviour should be considered legal?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!