Cheers” – Marlowe Johnson

That is why I hope we in the US NEVER see a Canadian type health system. Almost any activity can have health care cost repercussions and will be banned or taxed. Start with an easy one like smoking, move to a dubious one like fat/sugar, and then things like skiing or dirtbiking, or sunbathing or drinking alcohol become fair game. Doesn’t Canada already tax alcohol to the point that people homebrew to avoid the tax? Black market sugar will be next.

First of all, I’m Canadian, so any discussion of the Constitution and amendments and such is a bit lost on me. In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights, which is analagous but still different. The point I was trying to make was that this is basically a disagreement about rights, not laws per se, because laws themselves are based upon considerations of rights.

Second, I disagree with your either/or characterization of space. To me there are basically three kinds: private, semi-public, and public (e.g., house, bar, park), and there are different rights associated with along the individual-collective continuum.

I’m going to recast the issue here slightly so that hopefully we better understand each other’s position. Instead of framing it in terms of property rights, I instead see it in terms of the limits that the collective (i.e. public interest) can place on an individual’s rights (in this case, activities that occur on their property). In other words, is the public interest in discouraging smoking sufficient enough to override the individual’s right to allow smoking? As I mentioned in my earlier reply, in the homeowner’s case the anwser is no, but in the bar owners case the anwser is yes.

I take your point on ventilation systems and OHSA standards, but I’m pretty sure that there is a fair bit of literature out there that shows a pretty strong connection between cancer rates and second-hand smoke exposure in a work environment. But to me that’s ultimately a policy choice for governments to make; i.e, do you ban outright or impose ventilation requirements…

Having said that I think that there is more than a little hypocrisy and inconsistency when it comes to governments using health concerns as a means for justifying regulation. It bothers me to no end that in Canada, where we have publicly-funded health care, the government does virtually nothing to discourage unhealthy eating habits that arguably will cost the public purse as much if not more than smoking in the future. Am I saying that we should also ban/regulate fast food? I’m certainly leaning in that direction (i.e. I would love to see a fat/sugar tax). Like the bans on smoking, this kind of a policy could certainly be justified on the basis of reducing public health care costs.

Cheers,

A bar is not a “semi-public space.” There are no “semi-public spaces.” There are public spaces and private spaces.

“As such, there are more restrictions on the owner’s rights; for example, the bar owner can’t restrict access to his establishment based on race, religion, sex, etc, whereas the homeowner has every right to do so.”

That’s merely because the Supreme Court of the United States has willfully disregarded the plain language of the U.S. Constitution. To wit:

1) The 14th Amendment restricts state GOVERNMENTS, not private entities, and

2) The Supreme Court has an interpretation of the (INTERSTATE!) “Commerce Clause” that does not even pass a straight face test, when one is attempting to honestly compare the Court’s judgments with the views of the Founding Fathers.

So you are talking about the law, not people’s rights. Even more appropriately, you are not even talking about the law as it’s plainly written. You’re talking about the “law” as it’s practiced…which is to flagrantly disregard The Law as it’s plainly written (in the Constitution).

“The second important difference is that bars typically have employees, whereas homes do not. As such, a smoking-ban can be justified on the basis employee safety.”

No, it can’t. The simple fact is that the federal government has an (almost certainly unconstitutional) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA *has* regulations on acceptable workplace concentrations of various air pollutants, e.g., the 8-hour Time-Weighted Average allowable concentration for nicotine is 0.5 mg/m3 (0.5 milligrams per cubic meter, or 500 micrograms per cubic meter).

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992

Another simple fact is that even the most primitive ventilation systems can reduce workplace concentrations of pollutants in cigarette smoke to orders of magnitude below OSHA limits:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4848/1293/1600/OSHA%20SLP.0.jpg

“Now before you jump in Mark, let me concede that a person can choose not to go into a bar where there may be smoking, just as a person can choose to work in a different(less risky occupation).”

If you concede that, you’re conceding that the bar owner’s property rights are being violated. And you’re also conceding that the worker’s rights are not being infringed…because he or she can work in a place that has no smoking, smoking with good ventilation controls, or smoking with poor ventilation controls.

“As I said, reasonable people can disagree…”

Yes, there are people like me who respect everyone’s rights and The Law (specifically, the Constitution) as it’s plainly written.

Then there are those who don’t respect others’ rights, and ignore The Law as it’s plainly written, if ignoring The Law produces a “good result.”

Interestingly, much of the conflict centers arount the granting of liquor licenses to such places.

I should say up front that I think that on this issue reasonable people can disagree and I sometimes find myself feeling sympathetic for the poor souls outside the bar when it’s -30C outside.

To a certain extent the libertarian argument is compelling; as Mark points out, from a property-rights point of view there is no diference from the bar owners bar and the home owners home. If I’m allowed to let people smoke in my home, why can’t I allow them to smoke in my bar?

IMHO there are two considerations that muddy the issue and make the direct comparison described above inappropriate. First, a bar is, as Steve pointed out, a semi-public space. As such, there are more restrictions on the owner’s rights; for example, the bar owner can’t restrict access to his establishment based on race, religion, sex, etc, whereas the homeowner has every right to do so. One could argue that the state has a legitimate right to limit the bar owners rights even further by banning smoking using the known health risks to non-smokers as just cause.

(I remember going to a bar that tried to get around the newly implemented smoking ban by declaring itself a private club and charging a nominal membership “fee” with the first drink purchase)

The second important difference is that bars typically have employees, whereas homes do not. As such, a smoking-ban can be justified on the basis employee safety.

Now before you jump in Mark, let me concede that a person can choose not to go into a bar where there may be smoking, just as a person can choose to work in a different(less risky occupation).

As I said, reasonable people can disagree…

Puh-leez. Where’s my freedom from your disgusting habit? Gimme a break, pal.

It’s not all about you, as if your rights existed in a widdle bubble with no effects on anyone else.

Your argument doesn’t work. Period. No matter what widdle phrasie-phrases you use.

D

Shame on you, Andy Dessler and Dano. You win this round. but don’t expect us to be there when they come for you…

He continues with these study results quotes:

“Results: Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke. Sidestream condensate is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate by dermal application.”

Oh, brother. You apparently don’t understand the concept of “dose” very well. (By the way…have you learned the proper relationship between enthalpy and temperature in the atmosphere yet? Not likely, I expect!)

“Dose” does not simply mean the harm per unit mass of exposure. Dose is the product of the harm per unit mass of exposure TIMES the mass of exposure.

For example, if Person A takes a hit on a bong, and Person B across the room watches Person A inhale and exhale the smoke, does Person B receive the same dose as Person A?

That should be a rhetorical question…but considering your previous bloviating on ethalpy versus temperature in the atmosphere, for you, it’s probably not rhetorical.

So…are the doses the same for Person A and Person B, in the situation I just described?

Eli Rabett concludes, “Please explain to me again, why you have a right to poison those standing near you in any public accomodation.”

Do you have a problem reading? Please point to anywhere that I wrote something that you (incorrectly) inferred to mean that I think I “have the right to poison those standing near (me) in any public accomodation.”

What I DID write was:

1) The owner of a pub (which is PRIVATE property) has the right to set the rules for conditions on his or her property. (And anyone who doesn’t like those conditions should simply leave ***the owner’s property.***)

2) Each individual has the right to put in his or her body whatever he or she wants.

Published Tuesday, March 28, 2006, in the San Francisco Examiner

Board seeks to expand cigarette ban

By Justin Jouvenal
The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco has stamped out smoking in bars,
parks and restaurants, but two new locations may be added to the
growing list of butt-free zones: transit stops and golf courses.

The Board of Supervisors is considering a ban on smoking at hundreds
of bus, trolley and train stops scattered around The City, while a
separate version of the bill would also ban smoking at The City’s
public golf facilities.

“People that take the bus are a captive audience. People can’t walk
away from the bus stop when someone is smoking or they might miss
their bus,” said Alexandra Hernandez, co-chairwoman of the San
Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition. “There is no safe level of
exposure to secondhand smoke.”

The American Lung Association estimates secondhand smoke is
responsible for the deaths of 3,000 nonsmokers each year from lung
cancer and 35,000 to 62,000 from heart disease. The statistics do
not differentiate between outdoor and indoor secondhand smoke.
Denzel Russell, an asthma sufferer who testified in favor of the
ban at a City Hall hearing Monday, said he is often forced to leave
the bus stop when someone lights up.

“I worry I might have an attack,” Russell said.

The proposed ban, sponsored by Supervisor Fiona Ma, would be self-
enforcing, meaning it would be up to smokers to comply with the new
regulations.

The Department of Public Health, which backs the legislation, plans
to spend $15,000 putting up “no smoking” signs at transit stops
around San Francisco.

A handful of cities in California already have smoking bans at
transit stops, including Berkeley, Palo Alto, San Carlos and Davis.
The Board of Supervisors Neighborhood Services Committee passed
Ma’s version of the bill Monday. It now goes to the full Board of
Supervisors.

The committee will also take up Supervisor Jake McGoldrick’s amended
version of the bill, which bans smoking at public golf courses, next
week. McGoldrick said only banning smoking at bus stops would
constitute class inequality.

“It’s usually people that have lesser income that are using the bus
stop and people with greater income that use the golf course,”
McGoldrick said.

A similar ban on golf course smoking failed before the Board of
Supervisors last year.

The proposed bus stop ban left at least one smoker fuming. “I don’t
think smoking should be banned, because we live in a free country,”
said Will Fitzgerald, a 23-year-old San Francisco resident. He
paused and then added: “Supposedly.”