You're framing the smoking debate all wrong, Rob. If you smoke in your own home/car/sea shanty and give yourself cancer, you harm no one but yourself. I don't know any reasonable person who is trying to criminalize this act of slow suicide in your private residence.

But when you smoke in a public resturant/bar/office you ARE harming others with your smoking. You're probably giving me cancer and you're definately making my clothes smell like shit.

It's one of those "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" deals.

A libertarian argument against anti-smoking laws is this: people who own bars or restaurants should be allowed to do as they wish. If they want to allow smoking, so be it. Those who wish not to be exposed to the smoke can drink/dine elsewhere.

This is a tempting argument to make but it doesn't really make sense. Assume you own a bar in New York City (which bans smoking in bars). You decide you don't want smoking in your bar. The bar down the street DOES allow smoking. Do you, as the bar owner, really want to spend time enforcing your no smoking rule? My guess would be that you have better things to do with your time. If the government decides it has an interest in eliminating smoking then it is better for bar owners for the law to apply to all establishments, not just a few.

Finally, consider that people who smoke generally are more expensive, by which I mean they are more susceptible to all manner of diseases, than the general population. A libertarian would argue that smokers bear these costs themselves. Not really true. Their employers bear the costs in terms of missed days of work, their health insurers bear the costs, their co-workers insured under the same company bear the costs, other people insured by the same company bear the costs, and government bears the cost when the smoker needs medical care for which he is not insured.

You could of course say the same thing for obesity, but that's another discussion. It is plainly evident that one's decision to be a smoker bears costs not just for the person smoking but for a whole host of other, unaffiliated parties.

"Assume you own a bar in New York City (which bans smoking in bars). You decide you don't want smoking in your bar. The bar down the street DOES allow smoking. Do you, as the bar owner, really want to spend time enforcing your no smoking rule?"

Well, if I don't want smoking in my bar (or if I want to obey the law), then, yeah, I've got to make the effort to enforce the rule.

Why would what the bar down the street does matter one whit to me? I may lose some business because my smoking customers go there, but I may gain some of his non-smoking customers. Even if I don't, well, that's just the nature of competition, isn't it?

"It is plainly evident that one's decision to be a smoker bears costs not just for the person smoking but for a whole host of other, unaffiliated parties."

Why? If I smoke, and I refrain from smoking outside of my home or businesses which allow smoking, what 'unaffiliated parties' are affected by my smoking who wouldn't also be affected by John Doe's obesity? Those who choose to enter a smoking restaurant aren't unaffiliated, by the way. They made a decision to enter that restaurant, just as I made the decision to light a cigarette and inhale the toxic fumes into my lungs.

If the government has an interest in banning smoking (though, if the desire is to stop spreading the cost around, it'd be more effective to simply stop forcing nonsmokers to pay the health costs of smokers, IMHO), then the government should ban smoking, not pussy foot around by putting bans in place on smoking in private businesses.

Carrick:

No laws such as that which you propose could be passed because insurance companies can't operate on the basis of segregating risk; the very nature of insurance is that insurance spreads risk across the general population.

You are correct, though, in saying that smokers increase health insurance costs for everyone else, as do the obese, the elderly, those with chronic disease, etc. In the case of smokers, such people make a conscious, willful decision to engage in such activity, while most obese, all elderly, and all people with chronic disease have no control over their condition.

In consideration of that, I would argue that smokers constitute a special class of risk, which increases costs for non-smokers.

Dave says: No laws such as that which you propose could be passed because insurance companies can’t operate on the basis of segregating risk

A ready counter example is life insurance, where a de facto segregation already exists. And there are health insurance plans which given a deduction for non-smokers.

Dave also says: In consideration of that, I would argue that smokers constitute a special class of risk, which increases costs for non-smokers.

I agree here. The biggest difference between smoking and eating disorders is that in one case people are voluntarily using a highly addictive, toxic, carcinogenic, etc. product and in the other they are suffering from a psychological disorder. While it would be nice to cure people with eating disorders (including anorexia nervosa and bulimia as well as binge eating), you can't pass laws prohibiting mental illness.

I see no point in conflating the adoption of a high risk behavior such as smoking (ultimately a voluntary action) with a high-risk behavior associated with mental illness (ultimately involuntary). This whole argument smells of tobacco company propaganda. Has somebody been reading those flyers again?

Andrew wrote: "Except in a boxing ring, the sole reason you step into it is to hit and get hit. You step into a restaraunt to eat, not get cancer."

Before you enter a smoking restaurant, you know the risks. The situation's the same, in my opinion.

I'd wager that even smokers who went into a smoking bar/restaurant aren't doing it to get cancer, but because they like the smell of smoke while they eat. If you don't like the smoke, well, go to a different restaurant. You don't have to eat in the smoking restaurants, but if you have your way, smokers WILL have to eat in the non-smoking ones.

Andrew again: "They may be private, but they are selling to the public. Our government has the legal right to regulate many aspects of private business. I’m pretty sure if a store owner was exposing his customers to harmful radiation the government would have something to say about it. "

Actually, they're selling to their customers, who are a subset of the public — a voluntary subset, I might add.

I suspect that you and I have a very different idea of how far the government's "right" to interfere with private business goes, by the way.

The government likely would have something to say about a business person whose business practices allowed their customers to be exposed to radiation. That doesn't mean the government would be right. Assuming the customers are aware of it, and the building is shielded to prevent the general public from being exposed, I'd be sitting on this side of the table for that debate, too.

(1) caving in to those customers who insist on lighting up in his bar or (2) babysitting his customer s to make sure they don’t smoke. If government is going to take a position on the issue then it should apply the law universally or not at all.

This is wrong. The choice of whether or not to allow smoking in a given private establishment should rest entirely with the owner of that establishment. He or she can consider the pro's and con's of their smoking policy and make a decision accordingly. Everything else you mention (enforcing the policy, loosing customers) is what comes of owning your own business.

Choosing the level of your lighting in a bar or restaurant can send customers down to another place. I don't think we need any goverment regulation of that issue.

Can you guess who would oppose such a bill? Naturally, the same smokers who are adopting this high-risk behavior while many times claiming that the dangers are overblown.

And the insurance companies, who no doubt enjoy raking it in by jacking up premiums because "the smokers are taking a toll."

I think we enter dangerous territory when we start talking about smokers and insurance. People prone to obeisity also tend to raise insurance costs, should we kick them off insurance as well? Should we ask McDonald's to pay for their insurance? I think those are silly solutions. Instead, insurance companies should just charge people for insurance based on their propensity for getting sick. Fattys and smokers fit that bill, thus they will pay more accordingly. And I realize that most health insurance comes as part of a group package through an employer or something, but that can be gotten around by higher co-payments or perhaps a yearly fee if you're a smoker.

Regardless, this is the key statement:

the government should ban smoking, not pussy foot around by putting bans in place on smoking in private businesses.

As long as smoking is a legal activity the government should not be dictating to private property owners when and where it can be performed.

There is nothing voluntary from his perspective

Yes, there is. Don't take your kids to restaurants that allow smoking.

Unless, of course, we’re standing in a boxing ring, in which case you’ve got to expect that you’re likely to get hit. Why is your willingly entering a smoking-permitted business any different?

Except in a boxing ring, the sole reason you step into it is to hit and get hit. You step into a restaraunt to eat, not get cancer.

With the exception of some offices, Don, none of those places are public. Not only are you not required to eat in a restaurant/bar that allows smoking, you’re not entitled to do so either, because they are private property. Just like my home and car, they’re owned by private citizens; just because they’re open to allow people to come in and do business doesn’t make them public.

They may be private, but they are selling to the public. Our government has the legal right to regulate many aspects of private business. I'm pretty sure if a store owner was exposing his customers to harmful radiation the government would have something to say about it.

I said: There is nothing voluntary from his perspective

To which Rob said: Yes, there is. Don’t take your kids to restaurants that allow smoking.

By "his perspective", I meant (I thought clearly) the "kid's perspective." Obviously the guardian has choice in the matter. The kid in general has no choice.

And as to no smoking sections… it doesn't help the children who are subjected to second hand smoke by their parents. There are plenty of parents who will select the "either" choice when being put on the waiting list, even when the parent doesn't smoke.

From my perspective, we have two real choices here. Either ban smoking from restaurants, or don't permit minors to be seated in sections where smoking is permitted.

Sorry, Rob, I do understand your general perspective of individual freedom, but I still don't think it applies here. The unfortunate fact is there are entirely too many apologists for the tobacco industry. Be careful not to let this issue turn you into their torch bearer.

Dave:

I like to think of myself as a staunch right-winger, but I am what I am. I can be hard to label, as with most people.

And we're not talking about prostitution or gambling here, we're talking about smoking. I'm not sure the issues are comparable. There are unique consequences to each activity, thus the government addresses each separately.

We have outlawed prostitution in most parts of this country because we feel it is exploitive to women and conducive to other types of crime. It cannot be compared to this situation becuase it is an illegal activity while smoking is legal. The government has every right to prohibit illegal activities from taking place on private property.

Gambling is another matter altogether. It is legal (in certain places of the country) but is highly regulated. I think the lines are blurry on kids entering casinos though. The last time I was in Vegas there were a lot of kids walking through the casinos, but at a local Indian casino here in North Dakota it was explained to me that kids weren't allowed in not so much becuase of the gambling but because the casino was serving booze classifying the place, effectively, a bar. Gambling is also highly regulated so as to ensure fairness. There is a very high propensity for cheating, government ensures that citizens get a fair shake when the gamble. There is no such need with smoking. On a side note, I think gambling should be legal everywhere anyway. The only reason its banned in most places is because of a moral objection to it.

Andrew:

That's an interesting question. I believe I heard a few years ago where a child had sued one parent or another over damages from child molestation. I've not heard of a child suing his or her parents because they weren't raised in a healthy environment.

Its not somewhere I'd like to see our society go. There are always going to be bad parents and I'd hate to see our courts clogged with fat people suing parents for over-feeding them. I'm not really sure I have an answer for you.

Robin:

I'm with you on this issue. We're not talking about the relative evils of tobacco here, we're talking about a property owner's right to make a choice as to what specific and legal activities he or she may allow in their establishment.

Carrick wrote:
"By 'his perspective', I meant (I thought clearly) the 'kid's perspective.' Obviously the guardian has choice in the matter. The kid in general has no choice.

And as to no smoking sections… it doesn't help the children who are subjected to second hand smoke by their parents. There are plenty of parents who will select the 'either' choice when being put on the waiting list, even when the parent doesn’t smoke."

The kid has no choice if his parents smoke at home, either. His parents are equally to blame for taking the kid to a smoking restaurant (or smoking section in a restaurant) as they are if he gets sick because they smoke at home. These laws can't protect kids from apathetic parents.

I really can't speak for Rob, but I don't think that this issue is in danger of turning either of us into the torch bearer for the tobacco industry, because the issue here really isn't tobacco, it's personal property rights. If you want to discuss whether or not second hand smoke puts little kids at risk, and that we should therefore ban tobacco use, that's an entirely different matter.

Rob and Robin S: When you start arguing that i) the government has no role in the child's welfare or ii) that simply because all abuse cases can't be prevented by passing a law implies that the law does no good, then we have reached the point of reductio absurdum.

Specifically, Rob says: Protecting children from things that may harm them is the sole duty of the parents.

This is simply not correct: The government plays the role of advocate for the child's welfare in the context where others are unwilling or unable to do so. Now maybe you meant "should be the sole duty of the parents." I would disagree here as well: We are our children's stewards, not their owners. If we systematically abuse or mistreat our children, then our

Robin says: These laws can’t protect kids from apathetic parents. And child abuse laws don't protect children from being beaten by their parents, either. Just because we can't protect all of the children all of the time doesn't mean that child welfare laws shouldn't be present. I do expect these to overtime become inclusive to protecting children from second hand smokers.

Carrick:
I'm not arguing that the government has no role in a child's welfare, I'm arguing that, if child protection was the motive behind banning legal activities from private property, it's a fairly stupid way of approaching the problem. Banning smoking in Joe's Strip Club does pathetically little to protect my baby cousin from smoke.

These laws can't protect children because they're not designed to do so. The law includes a lot of situations (bars, upscale restaurants, office buildings) that have little-to-no impact on children. If you want to pass a law that says that no business that allows children can allow smoking, I'd be considerably less perturbed, because such laws would still provide some choice. The business owner could easily say, "Okay, I want my customers to be able to smoke. I'll put up a 'No Children' sign."

In defense of Rob's point, protecting children is the duty of parents. If parents fail (criminal level abuse and neglect), then yes, the government can (and should) step in — not because the child's safety isn't the parent's duty, but because the parents have failed in their duty.

Thank you Robin. I'd only add that, using Carrick's thinking, all parent's who smoke would have their children removed from them.

Are you advocating for that, Carrick?

Rob says: Thank you Robin. I’d only add that, using Carrick’s thinking, all parent’s who smoke would have their children removed from them.

I think I have actually already said what I thought should be done (for now): Namely prevent children from sitting in smoking sections in restaurants. Since the danger to children from second hand smoke is a long term risk in most cases, only a fool would advocate such a draconian move as removing the children from their parents. I also think that more needs to be done to protect non-smokers from the financial consequences of another choosing to smoke.

My advocacy is for an iterative approach. Let's fix the problems we can fix easily, then work on what needs to be done for the harder ones. In the end, you can't save everybody from other people's stupidity and ignorance, so you have to pick your battle's pretty carefully.

To summarize my viewpoint, I certainly don't argue that we should assume that privacy rights protect individual actions which harm other people, either physically (second hand smoke) or financially (via increased premiums for example). I also don't accept that there is a moral equivalency between an act made with conscious choice from one made involuntarily through mental illness. Finally, I reject the notion that we should do nothing if we can't fix it all in one fell swoop.

Carrick,

First, you've got a point. I did not word my statement correctly. It is the parents responsibility to care for their child. The government, however, must step in when there are eggregious errors on the part of the parents. Physical or sexual abuse being the most obvious forms of this.

The reasons why I do not feel the government should step in with regard to parents who smoke around their children are many:

1. There are a lot of parents who do it. Enforcing it would be nearly impossible.

2. It sets a precedent where-by children could potentially be taken away from their parents for other reasons. Like feeding kids too much candy. I don't think this is a road we want to go down.

3. As bas as smoking is for children, there are far worse things being done to children than exposure to second hand smoke. I would much rather authorities concentrate on those instances.

The bottom line is that there is only so much the government can do to protect children from bad parenting. We can criminalize the worst of these offenses (abuse, neglect, etc.) but at the end of the day we have to realize that some people are just sub-par parents and there's nothing else we can really do about that. If we try all we're going to do is end up doing trampling personal liberties and creating more inefficient bureaucracy.

Its just not a place I want government going.

Hi Rob:

Seeing as how every citizen in the country has this choice, I don’t see where there’s enough reason to eliminate an owners right to decide whether or not smoking should take place on their property.

I suspect for most people, we've beaten this dead horse until it's left an Arizona sized crater :->, but I'll try one last time to at least communicate my viewpoint.

If you read what I said carefully, you will note that I never said that consenting adults should not under current law be forbidden from accessing tobacco. My point was really that it isn't an automatic right in the sense that your original post seemed to suggest it was. In my previous post, I tried to summarize that, maybe to the point of sounding harsh.

Secondly, the issue with respect to restaurants is the question of "voluntary". I have no problems with adults (under current law) exposing themselves to second-hand smoke. My only issue there is that I don't want to subsidized their stupid habits.

My only issue here is with the welfare of children. I don't agree that parents should have the right to put their children repeatedly in harmful environments, and the simplest solution is banning children from smoking areas. Some states take the alternative somewhat draconian position of banning any smoking in restaurants. I happen to think that a bit extreme.

If we accept the proposition that second hand smoke is as dangerous as directly inhaled smoke, and if we agree that the state has the right to prohibit minors from smoking, then why in the world do anyone think it is ok for them to be seated in a smoking section? This just makes no sense.

&heellip; The recent surge in local governments banning smoking in private places has been a source of a lot of debate. Back when I frequented the Lounge at Experts Exchange, I remember a discussion about the topic that ran for quite a while (and, most likely, eventually devolved into a flame war). A more recent (and far shorter than the EE discussion I remember) thread on this topic can be found at Say Anything. In the course of that conversation, I summed up my stance on this issue pretty well with this statement: If the government has an interest in banning smoking … then the government should ban smoking, not pussy foot around by putting bans in place on smoking in private businesses. &heellip;