Survey Says: Should Restaurants and Bars Ban Smoking? - In a recent e-mail, singer/songwriter Chris McCall made a plea to her fans. She writes: Please c

Survey Says: Should Restaurants and Bars Ban Smoking? | Login/Create an Account | 19 comments | Search Discussion

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: Survey Says: Should Restaurants and Bars Ban Smoking? (Score: 1)
by wiki on Friday, July 06, 2007 @ 19:29:21 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message | Journal) http://www.myspace.com/old27

I don't think smoking should be banned in Restaurants and Bars . Come on ... give me a break.

Although I am always trying to quit smoking, I just see this as another personal right big brother is trying to ake away from us. Wake up people! ..pretty soon they will be telling you how many kids you can have.

Why would anyone that smoked want to go to a bar where yu couldn't smoke. It's hard enought o get people to go out as it is anymore.

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by wiki on Friday, July 06, 2007 @ 19:40:58 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message | Journal) http://www.myspace.com/old27

Why Defend Smokers?

Everywhere you look, anti-smoking groups are campaigning against smokers. They claim smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised.

There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places. The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas.

A growing number of independent policy experts from a wide range of professions and differing political views are speaking out against the anti-smoking campaign. They defend smokers for several reasons:

Smokers already pay taxes that are too high to be fair, and far above any cost they impose on the rest of society.

The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.

Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has “loaded the gun” for lawsuits against other industries.

Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights.

The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about their options.

Punishing smokers “for their own good” is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force.

Taxing Smokers

Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed commodity in the U.S. The federal excise tax is $0.39 a pack and the national average state excise tax is about $0.60 per pack, for a total of $0.99 per pack. In addition, the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) increased the price of a pack of cigarettes by about $0.40 a pack. In a growing number of cities, a pack-a-day smoker pays more in cigarette taxes than he or she pays in state income taxes.

Such high and discriminatory taxes on smokers are unfair. They are also an inefficient and unreliable way to raise funds for government. Excise taxes require regular rate increases to keep pace with inflation, whereas income, sales, and property taxes all rise with inflation or economic growth. Because of their narrow bases, excise taxes are unstable revenue generators. And excise taxes require relatively high rates to raise funds. These rates, in turn, create opportunities for evasion and the transfer of economic activity to states with lower taxes.

Dramatic price hikes and extreme taxes on cigarettes are threatening to create a stampede of tax evasion, black-market transactions, counterfeiting, and even use of lethal violence against convenience store clerks and truck drivers. Tax hikes of $1.00 a pack or more, as have been adopted recently by New York, Cook County, Illinois, and elsewhere threaten to take us to a neoprohibitionist era, with all the crime, expenses, and loss of respect for law enforcement that accompanied Prohibition.

Excise taxes are also regressive. People with low incomes not only pay a higher percentage of their incomes on cigarette taxes than do wealthier people, they even pay more in absolute terms. Persons earning less than $10,000 paid an average of $81 a year in tobacco taxes, versus $49 for those who make $50,000 or more. This was before recent massive tax hikes!

Social Costs

Are high taxes on cigarettes justified by the social costs smokers impose on the rest of society? No.

Harvard Professor Kip Viscusi has repeatedly demonstrated that smokers already pay more in excise taxes than the social costs of their habits. Even before the MSA, “excise taxes on cigarettes equal

Read the rest of this comment...

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by Mitch on Saturday, July 07, 2007 @ 09:36:14 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.michiganbands.com

Obviously, we hit a nerve.

Speaking of personal profit (and I'm really not sure how one profits from banning workplace smoking), the Heartland Institute you cited, even though the are listed as a non-profit, recieve money and support from big tobacco and big oil and other interests who stand to profit big-time from Heatland's agenda ( SourceWatch.org [www.sourcewatch.org]). There's a lot of big polluters out there who would love nothing better than to shut the EPA down for good, kill the Clean Air and Clean Water acts and unregulate all business once and for all - that is, unitl some Chinese sweatshop slips ethylene glycol into their toothpaste. Then the regulations and the science suddenly seems good enough.

I know how you feel though, up until five years ago I was smoking 2.5 packs a day. Quitting was a BITCH and I still miss it sometimes. But I got it in my head that I wasn't going to reward these companies anymore for keeping me addicted to their product and making me feel like shit for the
using it properly.

My mother has emphesyma, my brother has emphesyma - so I was going to do whatever I could to prevent it from happening to me. Yeah, yeah, it was my choice to smoke, but there's definitely an addictive and unhealthy side to it as well. Believe what you want, but I never get bronchitis anymore and that used to happen to me at least twice a year. And I don't cough in the morning and spit up chunks of my lungs anymore either. In the breathing department, I'm 100% better. But now I'm fatter -so you just can't win!

So as a non-smoker now, I understand how those non-smokers felt coming to the bars I was playing in. I used to make fun of their whining too. But now I can smell things again and when I come home from a night out my clothes stink, my hair stinks, my eyes are red and my throat feels like it's been coated with yak. When you're a smoker, you can't smell it - I don't know why. So it may turn out that MORE people go out to bars because of the increased benefit.

On the flip side, I think people who want to ban smoking in public spaces OUTDOORS are going way too far. In fact, I think if clubs and bars want to build a smokers room w/proper ventillation and a vestibule (inspected, etc..) indoors they should have that option and get a one-time fat tax write-off for it as well. New construction and new businesses in existing buildings wouldn't get that cut though.

Just my opinion....let's hear from you lurkers out there!

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by chrismccall on Sunday, July 08, 2007 @ 13:25:03 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Dear Wiki,
First of all I don’t consider myself an anti-smoking advocate. I support your right to smoke. Personal freedom is almost a religion to me. I think you should smoke, eat, drink and have sex with whatever you want, without causing harm. And this is where you and I part ways. The basis of my support of the HB 4163 rests on the health issues that I and many fellow musicians who make our living working in bars and restaurants, have suffered from. I’d like to get to your second posting which is a lengthy treatise written by a Lawyer who works for a right wing think tank in Chicago called the Heartland Institute. But before I do, I have to question why you posted this piece by Maureen Martin which claims, based on highly disputed science, that the health effects of smoking are inflated, when you yourself are trying to quit smoking. Why quit if it isn’t harmful? It’s sexy, it’s fun and it’s cool. Who doesn’t love that? That’s why I did it.
I preface my remarks with this because it feels disingenuous to me to argue over whether smoking is bad for your health. As you say, “Come on.”

Maureen Martin refers to “professional anti smoking advocates” making personal profit. Can we really deal with this with a straight face. I’m laughing, hysterically.
She says, “The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas.”

This is an interesting spin. “Tax payers”, are the people, who generally cause the grassroots movements. Whereas the Tobacco Lobby is funded by corporations. If you’re going to throw a grassroots party, who are you going to invite? Phillip Morris?

I testified a couple of weeks ago at hearing at the capital on this issue. Many people with severe health problems took the time to come to Lansing to speak, these were people who were hooked up to oxygen tanks, and people carrying pictures of dead loved ones. If you really want to argue that the second hand smoke is benign, I’m sure you can find some paid off scientist to back you up, but you can’t argue that people are profiting from advocating for the ban. I’m not selling anything. This claim just proves the absence of sincerity on part of Maureen Martin and others who are fighting on behalf of Tobacco.

I’m ashamed of this cliché, kind of, but I think virtually all of Maureen Martins arguments are “Smoke and Mirrors” and far too tedious to address seriously. In her praise of John Stuart Mill’s “slender book”, she makes my point for me.
“Another reason to oppose the current campaign against smokers is because it violates the legitimate rights of smokers. John Stuart Mill, in a slender book published in 1859 titled On Liberty, wrote: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
Harm to others. This is the point. If you want to put a little drop of carcinogen in your own glass of water, go right ahead, but I don’t believe you have a right to put your carcinogen, in my water. This ban is not for the purpose of “protecting smokers from themselves.”

This ban will not hurt business. It works in New York and Ireland of all places. You may find this hard to believe, but the Irish still drink in the pubs. Everyone wasn’t happy about passing the ban in Ireland, but they have it now, and they’re just fine and they smell better. I was there in the Fall and the debate on all talk radio at that time, was whether 8 or 9 pints was too many to drive on.

The one point made by Maureen Martin that I agree with is that raising the taxes on cigarettes will not inhibit smoking by children. I conquer, most children are thieves and liars and they will steal cigarettes from their older sisters purse, as I did when I was eight years old. Thus avoiding any contribution to the tax base. Furthe

Read the rest of this comment...

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by wiki on Monday, July 09, 2007 @ 11:22:44 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.myspace.com/old27

protection in work place? ... Ok ..I can understand and agree to that but I will never agree with banning smoking in bars. Why? .. because you don't have to be there .. it is a choice.

I think if anything it should be a choice for the business owner if they want to allow smoking or not. Not some law that is forced on them .. we don't need any more of those!

I know smoking is very bad for your health if you are a smoker, but personally I wouldn't worry about getting ill from second hand smoke too much unless you are exposed to it constantly in an unventilated area.

Maybe bars should just put a huge see through plastic wall seperating the bar in to two sections. One for smokers, and one for non smokers. Then everybody will be happy ..haha

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by chrismccall on Monday, July 09, 2007 @ 21:12:08 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Wiki,
You support protecion in the work place, but "never in bars". Forget musicians, do you think people work in bars?
I'm afraid you aren't very well informed on the effects of second hand smoke. Not only does the smoke effect non smokers but there is evidence suggesting that chemicals from ciggarettes in fabric causes asthma in children. Additionally, there are higher levels of tar, nicotine, nitric oxide and carbon monoxide released by side-stream smoke, which is the smoke from the lit end of the ciggarette, than through the filtered end. In other words it may be more toxic to inhale the side-stream smoke than it is to smoke the ciggarette itself. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040407082100.htm

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by dubblebassman on Monday, July 09, 2007 @ 22:47:26 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Wiki ,your not funny and you also dont make any sense.You believe in protection in the work place but just not for musicians,bartenders,waitstaff,restaraunt and club owners.Why are we the only employees who are deserving of your second hand smoke?
As for choice.This is what I do for a living.I cant just stop doing what I love and become a tobacco lobbyist tommorow.
Can I do a little math for you?An average night in a club consists of 1.5 hours setup,4 hours peformance and 1.5 hours teardown times 2,3,4 or 5 nights a week.Does that qualify me for your very scientific statement about being exposed to second hand smoke constantly in an unventilated area?
Thank goodness I am not a bartender or waitstaff or club owner who spend twice as much time in this enviroment.
For your information.I was at the hearing in Lansing 2 weeks ago and there were several club owners who also testified in support of the smokiing ban.
Eventually the tobacco lobby will lose out and smokers will not be able to injure others with their wandering carcinogens,unless they choose to do it to their own family in their cars and homes.That is still their god given right.
Keith

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by Mitch on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 @ 12:13:12 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.michiganbands.com

I don't think Wiki's trying to be funny at your expense. I think he was just trying to lighten the mood in this thread a little bit. People feel passionate about this issue on both sides, but I think the culture is turning away from smoking and that's probably a good thing.

But as in all things, we have to strike a balance. Too much freedom and too much regulation threaten to diminish the quality of our lives.

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by wiki on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 @ 21:31:48 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.myspace.com/old27

Right on Mitch!

yeah, I just don't like loosing any more rights that I don't have a chance to vote on

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by Rocko on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 @ 11:47:12 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

I don't give aq crap about not being able to smoke inside! I just want a designated place to smoke outside! The abil;ity to go in and out of the bar without problems or having to repay. Personally... I think if you don't like smoke... then don't go into a bar or go places where there is smoking. It's called freedom of choice.

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by dubblebassman on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 @ 21:59:01 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Rocco,this ban is not about the patrons who clearly have a choice as to whether they will visit a club that is smoking or non smoking.
This is about those of us who work in this industry who dont have a choice about where we work.
Keith

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by wiki on Thursday, July 12, 2007 @ 16:19:42 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.myspace.com/old27

Well if you can't handle the smoke keith, why would you work in a bar?

That would be like somebody that was alergic to dogs or cats working in a kennel.

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by chrismccall on Thursday, July 12, 2007 @ 17:05:33 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Wiki,
You have mentioned that you agree that protection in the work place from second hand smoke is reasonable, but you refuse to acknowledge that bars are places of work, and now you suggest that you should just work somewhere else, if you can't "handle" it.
Aren't you a musician? Where do you work? Most working musicians work in bars. Do you know of a real alternative? Or could I predict that your next suggestion would be to change careers entirely?Anyway, your analogy is flawed. I suppose there are some veteranarians who are allergic to some animals, but they can protect themselves from that. Cat and Dog dander doesn't cause cancer. It also doesn't affect everyone who comes in to contact with it, allergic or not.
Second hand smoke is a known carcinogen, if you remove the source than your not going to be exposed to it. You still have the bar and the drinks.
Chris

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by dubblebassman on Thursday, July 12, 2007 @ 23:57:41 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Wiki,I have spent my entire life working on my craft.Not only is it what I love to do but it is how I support my family.Now maybee that is a concept you are unfamiliar with, say if your career is still in the basement or should I say garage stage.

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by wiki on Friday, July 13, 2007 @ 12:58:26 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.myspace.com/old27

You need to chill out bro ... here, have a cigarette

*inhale* ..there, now isn't that better?

Well no matter what you all say I am still dead set against smoking bans. But maybe you will get your way? ..we will see. I just see it as another right lost and more govermnet control over us. If that's what you all want ..keep it up because sooner or later there will be so many laws and they will have so much control over us that you won't be able to do anything anymore. Then you will complain about that, but it will be too late.

My whole point is "where does it end?"
next you will have some whiners saying I can't work in a bar where bands play because the music is too loud and it gives me hearing damage.

I suggest you rent the movie "Swing Kids", and this time pay close attention to it. Then maybe you will realize how nice it is to have choices.

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by dubblebassman on Friday, July 13, 2007 @ 15:07:06 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Wiki ,I am anything but a conservative and a huge fan of less government.I would fight for your right to smoke,just not at my office .I am sorry I got a little defensive, but I am wondering why your second blog contained what seemed like a file straight from the tobbaco industry?
Peace

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by wiki on Friday, July 13, 2007 @ 19:08:18 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.myspace.com/old27

Because when I was originally reading this article, I looked to the right of the page and there it was in a Google ad..haha
So I clicked on it, read a little and it seemed to make some sence to me. So I copied the text from the article and pasted here for others to read.

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by dubblebassman on Saturday, July 14, 2007 @ 01:39:05 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Fine.

]

Re: Why Defend Smokers? (Score: 1)
by dubblebassman on Saturday, July 14, 2007 @ 01:39:45 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Fine.

]