Haha. Smokers OWNED by Mankato

[David S]

BRTD you really like bans don't you? How about if they ban strip clubs? The argument might be made that they attract sexual predators and make the neighborhood unsafe for women and children. It could also be argued that they  promote promiscuity which increases illegitimate births, and STDs. All those illegitimate kids end up on welfare supported by the state and the increase in STDs puts additional strain on the health-care system, so the state has a just interest in banning them. Besides, banning strip clubs would keep you away from all that nasty smoke.

What about freedom? How about if the bar owner has the right to decide whether he will have smoking and non-smoking sections, or no smoking at all or allow smoking anywhere? Then how about if you are free to go to the bars that maintain a smoke free area?

[David S]

Let's consider a third way.  In theory at least, one can assess the economic harm done by second-hand smoke in public venues.  (The accuracy of that assessment is subject to debate, but that it could be done is not.)  Then the solution is simple, tax business owners who allowing smoking in their facilities at a sufficient rate to compensate society for the harm done by the second-hand smoke.  This ensures that those who allow the harm of second-hand smoke to occur to have to pay for the harm done, while freeing individuals from each having to expend the effort necessary to calculate that harm for themselves.  (That's the main value of government, it allows for collective actions to be undertaken at a lower cost than the sum of all the individual actions it replaces.) The main problem with this approach is that it is hopelessly complicated, especially if the tax level is constanty subject to adjustment to refelect the estimated costs, but rounding up to a higher value does simplify things and provides the justification for sin taxes.

So that's my idea, no ban, but a tax based on the seating capacity of a public venue that is imposed if the business owner allows smoking.

Just for the fun of it what would be the economic damage done by a 50 seat restaurant with 20 seats designated for smokers? The restaurant has  good ventilation so people in the non-smoking section rarely smell smoke? What is the cost to society of this restaurant? Also what will be the cost of fighting the lawsuit brought by the restaurant's lawyer because your planned tax is felt to be unfair?

[David S]

Let's consider a third way.  In theory at least, one can assess the economic harm done by second-hand smoke in public venues.  (The accuracy of that assessment is subject to debate, but that it could be done is not.)  Then the solution is simple, tax business owners who allowing smoking in their facilities at a sufficient rate to compensate society for the harm done by the second-hand smoke.  This ensures that those who allow the harm of second-hand smoke to occur to have to pay for the harm done, while freeing individuals from each having to expend the effort necessary to calculate that harm for themselves.  (That's the main value of government, it allows for collective actions to be undertaken at a lower cost than the sum of all the individual actions it replaces.) The main problem with this approach is that it is hopelessly complicated, especially if the tax level is constanty subject to adjustment to refelect the estimated costs, but rounding up to a higher value does simplify things and provides the justification for sin taxes.

So that's my idea, no ban, but a tax based on the seating capacity of a public venue that is imposed if the business owner allows smoking.

Just for the fun of it what would be the economic damage done by a 50 seat restaurant with 20 seats designated for smokers? The restaurant has  good ventilation so people in the non-smoking section rarely smell smoke? What is the cost to society of this restaurant? Also what will be the cost of fighting the lawsuit brought by the restaurant's lawyer because your planned tax is felt to be unfair?

This is why if you did this you'd want to make it a tax cut for banning smoking not a tax for allowing it.

Same difference. You are giving BRTD's non-smoking restaurant preferential tax treatment over David S' restaurant which has a smoking section. Your law claims my restaurant does not qualify for tax cuts because the smoking section causes health problems. My lawyer says your claims of health problems are unsubstantiated , and uncalculatable. He demands the same tax cuts for my restaurant.

[David S]

Well, I just have to point to my signature to let you know how I feel about this. What? No, not the Cinnabon damnit -

The politically correct crowd will probably start working on those Cinnabons next. They will claim that Cinnabons are bad for your health and increase the rate of obesity and diabetes and therefore put additional strain on the healthcare system. That will be viewed as a justifiable reason for government to regulate, tax or ban them. They'll call it the Cinnaban.

[David S]

Well, I just have to point to my signature to let you know how I feel about this. What? No, not the Cinnabon damnit -

The politically correct crowd will probably start working on those Cinnabons next. The will claim that Cinnabons are bad for your health and increase the rate of obesity and diabetes and therefore put additional strain on the healthcare system. That will be viewed as a justifiable reason for government to regulate, tax or ban them. They'll call it the Cinnaban.

Unless eating a Cinnabon somehow causes others in the general vicinity of the eater to also have their health adversely affected, that is completely incomparable to the topic of smoking.

The claim will be that Cinnabons increase healthcare costs and that justifies government intervention. Also some of the more far out health nazis will claim  that those evil makers of Cinnabons add ingredients that make them smell good so that others in the area will be unable to resist the temptation to eat them too. What a sinister plot!

Gabu I believe that bureaucrats cannot resist the temptation to control other people's lives. They are already making noises about regulating fast food. They just need to gradually introduce such legislation so that people are not aware of any sudden changes. I think you would find people on this very forum who would support regulating fast food. And Cinnabons would qualify as fast food.

[David S]

My lawyer says your claims of health problems are unsubstantiated , and uncalculatable. He demands the same tax cuts for my restaurant.

Uncalculatable, maybe, but unsubstantiated?  There have been dozens upon dozens of studies showing the health risks surrounding exposure to secondhand smoke.

The claim that my restaurant causes health problems is insubstantiated. How would you prove it? How many people have suffered health problems from second smoke inhaled while in my restaurant? If you can't show that anyone was injured then the claim is unsubstantiated.

[David S]

My lawyer says your claims of health problems are unsubstantiated , and uncalculatable. He demands the same tax cuts for my restaurant.

Uncalculatable, maybe, but unsubstantiated?  There have been dozens upon dozens of studies showing the health risks surrounding exposure to secondhand smoke.

The claim that my restaurant causes health problems is insubstantiated. How would you prove it? How many people have suffered health problems from second smoke inhaled while in my restaurant? If you can't show that anyone was injured then the claim is unsubstantiated.

Dave, I think you're kidding yourself here.  You sound like a lawyer for the tobacco industry.

It is common knowledge, at least to me, that working around heavy smoke all the time will have negative health effects.

We are talking specifically about my restaurant which as I mentioned earlier has a good ventilation system. It pulls the air up into the ducts and then filters it before returning it to the room. Now how much smoke is there in the non-smoking section or even in the smoking section? Have you measured it? How do you know how bad it is? How do you know how much smoke anyone is getting while in my restaurant? Does it matter that I only allow waitresses who are smokers to serve the smoking section?