Haha. Smokers OWNED by Mankato

[Gabu]

They freely chose to work there so its their problem.

A lot of people don't exactly have a lot of choices where they'd like to work, especially if it's one of their first jobs, so I wouldn't exactly consider "either do this job or be unemployed and make no money" to be much of a choice at all.

I think many people who live in a world of 24/7 economic theory don't seem to remember the fundamental assumption in any theory surrounding a competitive market, which is that there is an infinite number of buyers (buyers, in the case of the employment market, being employers).  Obviously, this assumption is never, ever true, and is simply made to simplify the situation to make it workable for analysis.  In the case of a prospective employee with few job skills and little work experience, the assumption is very wrong, in fact.

[Bono]

Such a wonderful topic!

It exposes the problems with both unrestricted libertarianism and statism.

The problem with the libertarian position is that it assumes people are able to be fully informed so as to make a rational choice about the risks/costs/benefits of being exposed to second hand smoke.  However, this neglects the cost of acquiring such information and the difficulties most people have in accurately assessing risks, although the second point can be ignored if one assumes that the skill of accurate risk assessment is merely a comparative marketplace advantage that the government should not interfere with.

The problem with the statist position is, if one is going to ban public smoking, why not go to the next logical step of banning private smoking?

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.

Impossible to calculate, and could probably be solved by tort anyways.
As for your gratuitous acessment on libertarian theory, perhaps monetarists and co like to argue that, but you'll never hear an austrian say it.

[Platypus]

I smoke and I support bans in places primarily dovoted to food (restaurants etc) and even where food is served as a secondary product (cafe etc) but a bar, where they might sell chips and peanuts...As long as there are seperated smoking and non-smoking areas, business owners should have the choice. If it was might choice you could smoke in all pubs and bars etc., but to be reasonable, as long as people have a choice between a smoking and non-smoking area, then whats the problem? If the smoking area uses too much space for too little benefit, the owner can just get rid of it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Impossible to calculate, and could probably be solved by tort anyways.

Definitely not solvable by tort as the legal costs would be disproportionate unless one resorts to class action, and even then just simply dealing it with taxes would be cheaper.  The "redress all harm by torts theory" breaks down when an action causes a small amount of harm to a large number of people because the cost of the tort becomes impractical.  In the case of second-hand smoke, it might be possible to deal with the damage done to employees via tort, but not that done to customers and the damage done to the customers will be far greater.

[dazzleman]

Such a wonderful topic!

It exposes the problems with both unrestricted libertarianism and statism.

The problem with the libertarian position is that it assumes people are able to be fully informed so as to make a rational choice about the risks/costs/benefits of being exposed to second hand smoke.  However, this neglects the cost of acquiring such information and the difficulties most people have in accurately assessing risks, although the second point can be ignored if one assumes that the skill of accurate risk assessment is merely a comparative marketplace advantage that the government should not interfere with.

The problem with the statist position is, if one is going to ban public smoking, why not go to the next logical step of banning private smoking?

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.

The problem with your proposal is that it assumes that harm done can be fully redressed with money.  But good health can't be bought.  If I'm dying of lung cancer because I worked in a bar with a lot of smoke, or spent a lot of time in one, getting some money at that point will be a small consolation.

What does the government do with this tax money?  Is it supposed to go to people with smoking-related diseases, who don't smoke themselves?  How would they ever be identified?

If something is truly harmful to innocent people, why not just ban it, or require separate smoking sections?  This tax and tort approach is ridiculous, I think.  The tort approach would only make the lawyers rich, and the tax approach seems totally unwieldy.

[dazzleman]

I smoke and I support bans in places primarily dovoted to food (restaurants etc) and even where food is served as a secondary product (cafe etc) but a bar, where they might sell chips and peanuts...As long as there are seperated smoking and non-smoking areas, business owners should have the choice. If it was might choice you could smoke in all pubs and bars etc., but to be reasonable, as long as people have a choice between a smoking and non-smoking area, then whats the problem? If the smoking area uses too much space for too little benefit, the owner can just get rid of it.

The problem is, in many places, the non-smoking area is that in name only.  If there's not a physical separation and a separate ventilation system, the smoke from the smoking area gets into the non-smoking area.  It's like when the had the smoking sections on planes.  Do you think the smoke from those sections didn't permeate the planes?

[Platypus]

so make sure they are seperated by a glass wall or something.

[ilikeverin]

so make sure they are seperated by a glass wall or something.

There might be problems with fire codes, access for waiters/waitresses between the sections, and such.  Besides, when it gets to the point of making businesses construct new physical barriers, I think it's more of a fuss to do that than to just make the whole restaurant/bar non-smoking

[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?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Seems we have

For ban: BRTD, dazzleman, Speedy, TheWildCard, Everett, Ilikeverin, HamRadioRocks, Gabu, jfern

Against: adam, MaC, Bono, Kemperor, Alcon, Yak's Hairbrush, David S, Flyer's, Straha, Opebo, RBH, A18

Interesting splits.

That's how you know it's a good topic

Indeed. Although I notice that the people opposing the ban tend to be more populistic/interventionist on economic issues than the people opposing it with exceptions(everett is for it and I'm against it)

[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.

[Gabu]

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.

[Nym90]

I would've voted for this. It's a tough issue, and both sides have good points. Still I think that given the clearly documented hazard to the health of those around you due to smoking, it isn't something that people should be forced to go out of their way to avoid.

Bars are certainly more of a gray area than restauraunts, as they are "adult" establishments and their primary purpose isn't to serve food, but I'd probably still have voted for it.

[AkSaber]

I wouldn't vote for this. If a business owner doesn't want patrons smoking in his establishment, let him ban it.

[John Dibble]

Well, I just have to point to my signature to let you know how I feel about this. What? No, not the Cinnabon damnit - I know it looks delicious, but look to the left, douchebag!

Anywho, I'm with the stance that a restaraunt is NOT a public place. It is private property that is open to the public, thusly going in the restaraunt is not a right but a privilege granted by the owner. If you disagree with the conditions set forth by said owner you are within your rights to just not go there. Thusly I find a ban coercive beyond what government should be allowed to do. However, I am willing to admit a restaraunt is different from a house in that it is selling a product to the public(atmosphere is arguably inclusive in this), so I wouldn't be against slapping a moderately sized sticker on the door that says the establishment allows smoking and that some studies indicate second-hand smoking may increase cancer risks. If that was the case those who enter would be educated to the risk and thusly would have nobody to blame but themselves.

Bans in actual public places, such as courthouses or other government owned facilities, would legitimately be subject to smoking bans in my view since the government is basically owned by the public.

[Sam Spade]

why do you hate freedom BRTD?

[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.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The health nuts can only go so far with their nonsense. Eventually there wil lbe a major backalsh.

[Gabu]

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.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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.

Wrong. Both "issues" are the same because the health nazis are obsessed with btrying to msake everyone "live irghht".

[Ban my account ffs!]

I personally support the freedom to go into a public place and breathe air that isn't fouled by cigarette smoke.  There are few smells I hate more.

We talk about smoker's rights, but what about the right not to have somebody else's bad habit give you cancer?

Smokers will adapt.

Why don't we talk about the property rights of the bar owners? The right they SHOULD have to allow the consumption of whatever legal product they please on the premisis of their property. If these people want to breathe "clean" air, they can select another bar/restaurant, rather than trampling on the rights of bar owners.

My guess is that you also oppose a ban on same sex marriage?   I mean.. if you don't like gay marriage.. then don't have one!  It's that simple!

God, I wish all Republicans were this understanding.

[Gabu]

Wrong. Both "issues" are the same because the health nazis are obsessed with btrying to msake everyone "live irghht".

Oh, okay, thank you for informing me of what I think.  It is clearly more productive to tell other people what they think instead of actually trying to understand what they actually think.

The justification given to ban smoking in public places is that secondhand smoke has been shown to be just as effective at causing cancer than inhaling smoke directly from a cigarette, and hence, that the smokers are adversely affecting the health of everyone around them against the will of those in the smokers' vicinity.  No attention is paid to the smokers' health.

The exact opposite is true in campaigns to ban junk food - these campaigns are trying to save people from themselves by making them unable to eat unhealthy things.  No attention is paid to the people in contact with the person eating the junk food.

And if you still think that they're exactly the same, you're now being wilfully ignorant.

[John Dibble]

The justification given to ban smoking in public places is that secondhand smoke has been shown to be just as effective at causing cancer than inhaling smoke directly from a cigarette, and hence, that the smokers are adversely affecting the health of everyone around them against the will of those in the smokers' vicinity.  No attention is paid to the smokers' health.

Depends on the particular anti-smoking campaign - seen a 'Truth' commercial lately? They seem to be concerned about more than just the second-hand smoke. I'm pretty sure if they had their way they'd ban all tobacco period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes it is - if a person gets heart problems due to eating too much junk food, it might result in them having to get the government to front some of their health costs. This does affect other people as they are paying the taxes that pay for this, and some health advocates do note this in their campaigns. Or what if the person dies of a heart attack, who will take care of his kids? Just examples, but such logic is used by some people.

Still, regardless of the logic here the primary objection we have to these types of bans remains the same - these types of bans are people shoving their wills down the throats of others when they have no business doing so.

[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.