Mideast Assembly Thread

[RIP Robert H Bork]

There is a problem with the bill; as it stands now, it is possible that a person is not in a building or establishment open to the public, yet he is smoking in public.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

There is a problem with the bill; as it stands now, it is possible that a person is not in a building or establishment open to the public, yet he is smoking in public.

Well we can't really ban people from smoking outside, even if it's a public park for example. (We'd be lynched by the smokers of the region if we passed such a bill )That's why I changed it from the original bill to start with.

 

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Well if we were to do that then smokers could simply get out of the building and go smoke outside, thereby simply moving public smoking from one place to another instead of really eliminating it. I think that we should amend the bill as follows:

Section 1 is amended to read "It shall be illegal in the Mideast for a person to smoke inside any area, building or establishment open to the public, including but not limited to parks, bars, restaurants, public transportation, cinemas, and libraries."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just to comment on the amendment - yall need to address the fact that voting can open anywhere between 0000 hours Thursday and 0001 Friday.  So if somebody who the Governor didn't like declared his/her candidacy at 10:58 P.M. Tuesday, the Governor could just open the booth at noon on Thursday and keep the candidate off the ballot.  You need to set a definitive time as to when candidacy declaration ends (I would suggest 48 hours before the 0000 hours Thursday).

[Purple State]

Just to comment on the amendment - yall need to address the fact that voting can open anywhere between 0000 hours Thursday and 0001 Friday.  So if somebody who the Governor didn't like declared his/her candidacy at 10:58 P.M. Tuesday, the Governor could just open the booth at noon on Thursday and keep the candidate off the ballot.  You need to set a definitive time as to when candidacy declaration ends (I would suggest 48 hours before the 0000 hours Thursday).

Something like the wording "forty-eight (48) hours before the earliest time the voting booth may be opened."

[Badger]

Just to comment on the amendment - yall need to address the fact that voting can open anywhere between 0000 hours Thursday and 0001 Friday.  So if somebody who the Governor didn't like declared his/her candidacy at 10:58 P.M. Tuesday, the Governor could just open the booth at noon on Thursday and keep the candidate off the ballot.  You need to set a definitive time as to when candidacy declaration ends (I would suggest 48 hours before the 0000 hours Thursday).

Something like the wording "forty-eight (48) hours before the earliest time the voting booth may be opened."

Agreed.

[Badger]

There is a problem with the bill; as it stands now, it is possible that a person is not in a building or establishment open to the public, yet he is smoking in public.

Well we can't really ban people from smoking outside, even if it's a public park for example. (We'd be lynched by the smokers of the region if we passed such a bill )That's why I changed it from the original bill to start with.

 

My two cents on the above objections, plus something new that hopefully won't muddy the waters.

Officepark is correct that, as written, the law will not ban all smoking in public, merely in all public enclosed/semi-enclosed places such as bars, ballparks, etc. While some cities (like NY, IIRC) have had success with outright public smoking bans, perhaps it'd be wiser to start off with mostly banning it as this bill does and see how it works. Banning having to sit next to someone in a tavern who's smoking is one thing; banning having to pass someone along the street who's smoking may be overreaching at this time.

Officepark's comment about simply moving public smoking--rather than eliminating it altogether--from inside buildings to outside is correct. When smokers all congregate outside the entrance to a building, just entering and exiting through a ubiquitous cigarette fog is often enough get the health and nuisance effects (smelly clothes, etc) of a couple hours 'casual' exposure to secondhand smoke. Modeled after some municipal ordinances such as Columbus, what if the ban were to include a prohibition on loitering while smoking within, say, 10 feet of the entrances of any public place (however the amendment ultimately defines them)? Since such a violation is less egregious than someone brazenly lighting up inside a restaurant, perhaps such outdoors offenders could be subject to a lesser penalty (e.g. fines from $25-$100). "Loitering" would not be hard to legally define so as to exclude people walking past a business while smoking as opposed to a mass of employees and customers turning the entrance to any establishment in to a de facto smokers lounge.

Finally, may I suggest the following amendment:
"Any facility or establishment that earns at least 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment."

This is essentially a "Hookah Bar/Cigar Bar exemption" similar to what Columbus has. These establishments are small in number, but growing, and cater to people who come there for the purpose of buying and smoking quality "gourmet" and flavored tobaccos in water pipes or in cigar form. While the old argument that one should "expect" smoking when one goes to a bar or restaurant is simply unacceptable nowadays, going to a cigar bar and being offended by all the smoke is like going to a Hooters and complaining about the scantily-clad waitresses--"Why did you come here?!?" The "50%" figure is based on the complaints of Hookah and Cigar bar owners in Columbus who complained that the proposed 80% requirement would still force them out of business as they made a sizable chunk of their money from sales of juice, sandwiches, pop, etc., but 50% is still high enough that bars and restaurants can't easily circumvent the law merely by selling cigars and putting a few cigarette machines in the lobby. These businesses provide jobs and tax revenue for a legitimate purpose that doesn't broadly affect non-smokers, but this law as written will force them out of business.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

[Badger]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

Wow you're good!

As it is now we seem to be focusing only on visitors and customers to public buildings, which mean we are forgetting another important part of why this bill should be passed, namely the health of people that work in these public buildings and establishments. 

The Governor points out that if a customer is unhappy about people smoking inside, for example a restaurant, they can choose to leave, choose to eat somewhere else. A waiter who works at the restaurant does not have that choice. They have to work for about eight hours every day, five days a week in the very unhealthy environment that smoking creates in bars and restaurants. That’s how they support themselves, and make a living.   

When a similar bill, outlawing smoking in for example in bars and restaurants, were passed in Sweden (my old homeland before I moved to Atlasia) this was the main argument to why public smoking inside should be illegal. Due to working in smoke for such a long period of time, waiters, barmaids and people who holds similar occupations are the group that are worst effected by passive-smoking.

Sure someone can claims that those people could choose to quit their jobs if they don’t like working in a thick fog of poisonous smoke, but we have to be realistic, a single mother who has to feed two children, or a teenager working to save money for college can not just give up their jobs because it has a bad effect on their health. Passive smoking can be fatal, and if not fatal cause serious injuries and illnesses. Therefore I do not believe it should be up to restaurant owners to decide for themselves. I’m not a supporter of government intervening with businesses’ business, but this is about the health of several working Atlasians

I will not back down on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although you make a very good point, exstending the bill to include the area around entrances would in my oppinion only make a simple thing complicated. It's my hope people will have enough common sense not to gather in crowds right in front of the door to smoke but actually placethemselves were they are not in the way.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will support such an amendment. Banning smoking in cigar bars is slightly silly, so this amendment is a good idea.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

I have not made my decision yet.  But I will say that if smoking were banned in both restaurants and on government property (open spaces), I would be more likely to sign it than if it just banned it in businesses and other closed spaces.

[Badger]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

Wow you're good!

Thanks! Does this count as an endorsement in the assembly race? ;-)

As it is now we seem to be focusing only on visitors and customers to public buildings, which mean we are forgetting another important part of why this bill should be passed, namely the health of people that work in these public buildings and establishments. 

The Governor points out that if a customer is unhappy about people smoking inside, for example a restaurant, they can choose to leave, choose to eat somewhere else. A waiter who works at the restaurant does not have that choice. They have to work for about eight hours every day, five days a week in the very unhealthy environment that smoking creates in bars and restaurants. That’s how they support themselves, and make a living.   

When a similar bill, outlawing smoking in for example in bars and restaurants, were passed in Sweden (my old homeland before I moved to Atlasia) this was the main argument to why public smoking inside should be illegal. Due to working in smoke for such a long period of time, waiters, barmaids and people who holds similar occupations are the group that are worst effected by passive-smoking.

Sure someone can claims that those people could choose to quit their jobs if they don’t like working in a thick fog of poisonous smoke, but we have to be realistic, a single mother who has to feed two children, or a teenager working to save money for college can not just give up their jobs because it has a bad effect on their health. Passive smoking can be fatal, and if not fatal cause serious injuries and illnesses. Therefore I do not believe it should be up to restaurant owners to decide for themselves. I’m not a supporter of government intervening with businesses’ business, but this is about the health of several working Atlasians

I will not back down on this.

Hear hear!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although you make a very good point, exstending the bill to include the area around entrances would in my oppinion only make a simple thing complicated. It's my hope people will have enough common sense not to gather in crowds right in front of the door to smoke but actually placethemselves were they are not in the way.

Point taken. Although I support this idea, I realize that many may view it as overreaching. I suggested it primarily to address Officepark's valid concerns.
Your optomism of people's common sense is encouraging, my friend, but in practice they've let you down here. :-(  Until the 10 ft. "buffer zone" rules were enacted, every establishment's entrance became the smokers' cloudy smelly carcinogenic refuge.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will support such an amendment. Banning smoking in cigar bars is slightly silly, so this amendment is a good idea.

Thank you!

[Badger]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

I have not made my decision yet.  But I will say that if smoking were banned in both restaurants and on government property (open spaces), I would be more likely to sign it than if it just banned it in businesses and other closed spaces.

Wouldn't "public places" as the bill defines it include government property open to the public? I think I know what you're getting at--and actually agree with you too--but could you elaborate a little so we're all on the same page?

[Peter]

Section 1 is amended to read "It shall be illegal in the Mideast for a person to smoke inside any area, building or establishment open to the public, including but not limited to parks, bars, restaurants, public transportation, cinemas, and libraries."

Voting on the above Amendment is open.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Aye.

[Peter]

I must vote against the amendment.

My principal reason for supporting the bill is the sense that it is damaging to the health of others for a smoker to smoke in an enclosed environment in their presence.  I have seen little evidence in real life, and none presented to this Assembly, that would indicate that smoking in the open air, such as in a park, is damaging to other nearby users of the park, hence I oppose the amendment.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I must vote against the amendment.

My principal reason for supporting the bill is the sense that it is damaging to the health of others for a smoker to smoke in an enclosed environment in their presence.  I have seen little evidence in real life, and none presented to this Assembly, that would indicate that smoking in the open air, such as in a park, is damaging to other nearby users of the park, hence I oppose the amendment.

As I said before, we cannot stop people from smoking outside. I also have to vote against the amendment.

[Peter]

The Noes have it. The Noes have it.

There are no pending amendments to the bill on the floor.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'd like to introduce the following amendment as suggested by citizen Badger.

Public Smoking Ban Bill
1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, public transportation, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.
4. Any facility or establishment that earns at least 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment.

Also I really hope we'll be able to have a final vote before the 6th Assembly ends. 

[Peter]

4. Any facility or establishment that earns at least 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment.

We are voting on an amendment to add the above clause 4 to the bill.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

4. Any facility or establishment that earns at least 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment.

We are voting on an amendment to add the above clause 4 to the bill.

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

If I were a member of this assembly, I'd point out some past studies that actually measure the toxicity of the pollutants in cigarette smoke outside. Cigarette smoke, outside, has been measured as more harmful than car exhaust fumes. Shame I don't read this thread often.

[Peter]

If I were a member of this assembly, I'd point out some past studies that actually measure the toxicity of the pollutants in cigarette smoke outside. Cigarette smoke, outside, has been measured as more harmful than car exhaust fumes. Shame I don't read this thread often.

At what sort of proximity?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Abstain.

[Peter]

Abstain
The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.

The bill stands as stated in Swedish Cheese's post above.