from today's CATO Daily Dispatch(www.cato.org)

[bastiat]

How can you say someone going into a place where smoking is going on is unknowingly risking something? According to everything on TV, the radio, on billboards and in the paper, second hand smoke is the devil itself. No person alive and able to see, hear, or read can claim that they haven't heard about second hand smoke or cigarrettes.

The real irony is that the claimed damage of second hand smoke greatly outstrips what they've been able to prove about it. The previously mentioned WHO report that was buried proves that the second hand smoke claims are as dubious as the global warming sideshow that's going on. It's all junk science pieced together to further a cause, not science.

 

[alan]

bastiat:

Re the question you asked, "Do you believe that your assumed rights as a person that doesn't like to breathe second hand smoke, and who may or may not ever patronize a particular bar that allows smoking trumps the constitutionally derived property rights of the person who owns the business, pays property taxes, and earns their livelihood by operating the bar as they see fit?

Yes or no?", pl;ease let me know if you actually get an answer.

Alan

 

[general]

I don't think there has ever been a confirmed death by the CDC with a listed cause of "second hand smoke" - but yes it does get the red headed stepchild treatment don't it.

 

[MeekandMild]

At the risk of getting flamed, I think if you have the right to smoke where I have to breath it I should have the exact same right to shoot past your ears. No, there's nothing you can do to prove the damage wasn't the result of your own lawnmower, rock music and your own shooting habits. Besides you got in my way and its a free country.


(No, I wouldn't really do it. With rights go responsibilities. A responsible smoker would not deliberately hurt another person and would assume anyone around them was an asthmatic or had some other major difficulty with smoke exposure, now wouldn't they.)

 

[bastiat]

..and what I predicted earlier becomes true.

I'm too young to be this jaded.

 

[alan]

Mek and Mild:

Hardly a "flame", but you might consider the following, re what you wrote, see below for reference. "At the risk of getting flamed, I think if you have the right to smoke where I have to breath it I should have the exact same right to shoot past your ears. No, there's nothing you can do to prove the damage wasn't the result of your own lawnmower, rock music and your own shooting habits. Besides you got in my way and its a free country."

Perhaps you "should" have the right you speak of, but in fact, you don't because your action is likely to cause physical harm to me, possible loss of hearing, or if your aim should be just a mite off, immediate death which is the worst form of "physical harm".

As to your "besides...", given the fact that you might bother and or otherwise annoy me, giving rise to my shooting you, my reference to the fact that it's a free country would not make much of a defense, agreed?

While I seldom smoke anymore, this past weekend I enjoyed a very good cigar, the first one in about 6 months, and I consume on the order of a couple of cigaretts a week, some weeks none at all, I do now and then spend time in various ginmills, where many people smoke. If you really believe it sensible, reasonable or anything else other than bloody stupid of me to expect all these others to cease smoking, at my appearance, or perhaps your arrival, how about explaining, given the fact that you can walk down the street, to that other establishment that runs on a no smoking here basis.

Other than this, I submit the following. In my estimation, and this is really likely to stir the pot, the "movers and shakers" amongst the anti-smokers, the anti-gunners, the anti abortionists are plainly concerned with gaining power and control, end of story. The issue of the moment, whatever it might be, merely serves as a hook, upon which they might hang their coat.

If you want to consider yourself having been "falmed", by my guest, but please note the smallness of the flame.

 

[Pendragon]

Excellent response bastiat.

However, I am not satisfied.

You are trying to put me to bed without supper, but I think a few points need to be brought into sharper focus.

1. Your response is predicated on the notion that:

a. The person who took the job at the smokey place knew in advance that they would have to deal with the smoke.

b. The person who took the job with the lecherous creep did not know what they were getting into.


Since the root of this monkey circus is the notion of private property rights, and the right of the owner to do as he pleases with his property, I feel compelled to point out:

In example "a", the owner can smoke or allow smoking at any time. This means that the employees could be in a smoke free environment for a few years, then the owner takes up smoking and hires a few human chimneys and suddenly, they have to choose - stay and suck smog, or pound sand.

In example "b", it is entirely possible that the sexual harassment could begin in the interview - with something of a casting couch arrangement. Maybe the owner does not do anything overt to his employees - maybe he just starts playing porno on the TV in his office and on the TV in the break room. Perhaps like the above example, he just starts doing it one day.

The way the laws and the courts are right now, you can be busted for S.H. simply for telling your buddy a sexual joke in confidence - but if someone overhears it, you can get pinched. Even worse, if I am in the room and I overhear it, but am not party to it, I can get pinched as well. I think in some cases the law goes too far, but I tend to agree with the spirit of the law.


So - if it is your private property, should you be able to post up X-rated pictures and play adult movies at the job site? I think that is a lot more analogous to smoking than just "put out or you're fired".

A lot of people view porn as harmless and a lot of people view it as addictive, corrosive, destructive, degrading and evil.

Kinda like a certain other product

Like someone mentioned, you cannot just burn your place down, neither can you shoot next to someones head. Some things are just considered too dangerous for society.

So, as I mentioned in the post on TFL, if you think "society" cannot ban or regulate certain behaviors, where do you draw the line?

If we say smoking should be legal for the cause of liberty, then what about:

Fire regulations for theaters?
Health Codes for restaurants?
OSHA codes for industry?

What about laws that require building inspections and require you to dispose of your garbage and sewage in a certain manner?

Could you not make an arguement that these are all infingements on the rights of private property owners?

Certainly.

Now I do realize that right now, the anti smoking laws are at the state and local level. Perhaps you would all be happier if there was a Federal law?

The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. It would be a small matter indeed to make the point that allowing smoke in public businesses is an issue that affects interstate commerce. (You know, tourism, the tobacco trade, etc - hey, if they can use it to ban machine guns...)

Ok, I had a few more points, but I am pretty tired right now... someone else run with this.

 

[faustulus]

I have left jobs because of how I felt about their policies. If I didn't agree with how they were operating the only thing that was keeping me there was myself.
Sexual harrassment is rude, and uncalled for. It should not however be illegal. You do not have a "right not to be offended." No one has to take it, you are not compelled to stay in one place and can leave anytime you wish. By the same token smoking should be the choice of the property owner, if people do no want to work there the employer will have to change his policy or offer greater monitary compensation, thereby hurting his bottom line, but the choice should be up to the owner. How would we feel if our city passed a law saying no guns in the workplace/resturants/department stores? After all the CDC says they are a public health issue, just like smoking. It may seem like a silly debate but make no mistake, the antis have found a way to attack smoking and they will do the same thing to guns, red meat and anything else they deem inapporptate for the vast unwashed masses.
Our problem is we all too often only worry about our own problems, and focus on our own fight. Trust me they are all linked. They will use tactics learned in other battles on us. I don't smoke and don't like smoking. I also don't like modern country music. But I am not asking that it be banned. Sappy country songs probably do more damage than second hand smoke. There are at least as many studies out to support that.

 

[Al Norris]

This is the never ending debate.

If growing tobacco were an unlawful act;
If manufacture of tobacco products were an unlawfull act;
If consumption (in and of itself) of tobacco products were an unlawfull act;

Perhaps the anti's would have a leg to stand upon.

The parallels to the gun industry are amazing. This isn't about health issues. It's about control. Pure and simple. Go back and re-read this thread with a view of substituting guns for tobacco. The arguements against tobacco usage are red herrings and strawmen. Nothing more and nothing less. They are in fact, the same arguements to one extent or another, as those used by the anti-gunners.

The fact of the matter is that we have a few misguided people who wish to impose their sense of morality upon the whole of society. The rights of the majority do not in all cases trump the rights of the individual.

 

[MeekandMild]

faustulus

Politics aside, if smokers were as polite as gun owners there would be no problem.

You never know when the guy you are bothering with your smoke has had major breathing problems and an attitude and a weapon. Think of the ordinances as a way of reducing unneeded social disturbance and violence. Also, consider the fact that if somebody puts out your cigar the hard way some day, I might be on his jury.

(To look at me you'd never tell I have a 70% breathing obstruction from smoking related cancer so in the absence of polite smokers who ask or move away without asking I really appreciate antismoking ordinances.)

 

[publius]

If you think it is ok to allow smoking at work, then you should think it is ok to allow sexual harassment and sexual favors for employment/advancement.

You could actually make a pretty good libertarian argument as to why sexual harassment should be legal.

After all, if you dont want to ****/inhale, you should just go elsewhere right?

Right. Your boss doesn't employ you out of the goodness of his heart. He does it because you make him money. If you want to make some lecherous, disrespectful oaf richer, that's your business. If you want to F*** him, that makes you a prostitute, a profession I believe should be legal.

Much more on the facts about secondhand smoke and the government jihad against tobacco can be found here:

http://reason.com/tobsuit.shtml

 

[Al Norris]

MeekandMild wrote:
Politics aside, if smokers were as polite as gun owners there would be no problem.

Politics aside, if nonsmokers were as polite as gun owners there would be no problem.

You seem to think it is all one-sided. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are as many impolite nonsmokers as there are smokers.

Since I couldn't tell that you are "breathing impaired," it would be incombant upon you to inform me of your condition. I flunked mind-reading 101. You could then politely ask me not to smoke around you. I have had this happen before, albeit rarely, and I have complied.

Where I get my dander up is for those inconsiderate jerks who think I'm a jerk for smoking and treat me as such. So it cuts both ways.

 

[alan]

Al Norris:

Re your observation on the fact that some folks seek CONTROL, what I described as POWER, see below a portion of my response to Meek and Mild, who expressed concern about being, as he described it, flamed.

Other than this, I submit the following. In my estimation, and this is really likely to stir the pot, the "movers and shakers" amongst the anti-smokers, the anti-gunners, the anti abortionists are plainly concerned with gaining power and control, end of story. The issue of the moment, whatever it might be, merely serves as a hook, upon which they might hang their coat.

You and myself, at least, seem to have grasped what is plain to see.

 

[bastiat]

Pendragon in particular and others in general:

The issue isn't about anything you've touched on like sexual harrassment, OSHA regulations, or anything else. It isn't whether or not the people knew there would be smoking in the restaurant before they went there, either to eat or to work. So please stop dancing around the real issue - either address it or move on. The real issue is property rights as it relates to smoking. Stop drying to draw parallels to other issues before you address the primary issue.

So I ask again, and I haven't received an answer from the anti-smoking side:

Do you believe that your assumed rights as a person that doesn't like to breathe second hand smoke, and who may or may not ever patronize a particular bar that allows smoking trumps the constitutionally derived property rights of the person who owns the business, pays property taxes, and earns their livelihood by operating the bar as they see fit?

Yes or no?

 

[Pendragon]

Sorry bastiat,

I reject your principle of narrowing the scope. I think the principles and parallels are legitimate because the question is:

Are there any limits on property rights.

Perhaps you could add "constitutionally valid" in there.


I think there are a lot of principles going back to the common law that justify socially imposed limits on the use of property - espcially within a town/city.


As to your "have you stopped beating your wife" question:

Do you believe that your assumed rights as a person that doesn't like to breathe second hand smoke, and who may or may not ever patronize a particular bar that allows smoking trumps the constitutionally derived property rights of the person who owns the business, pays property taxes, and earns their livelihood by operating the bar as they see fit?

1. I do not presume that my dislike of SS grants me any rights not held by other citizens.

2. I do not believe that my patronizing a bar or not has anything to do with the debate. Either they can allow smoking or they cannot.

3. I do not believe it has been conclusively proven that allowing smoking in a public business is a "constitutional right".

4. The fact is, you simply cannot "operate your bar as you see fit" if your views do not align with certain civil codes. You must have fire doors, you must be clean, you must be safe. Smoking falls within this sphere. You can debate the dangers of SS, but dangers aside, the annoyance factor is enough in my opinion to make it bannable. Same with many many other things.

Also, please note - there is no "right to smoke" explicitly recognized in the constitution like there is with RKBA. The slippery slope argument is weak because smoking does not have valid constiutional protection nor can you do it without (potentially) harming (or annoying) people around you.

Banning guns is prior restraint - because I *might* accidently shoot someone.

Banning smoking is not because my exposure to SS is a forseeable effect of public smoking.


I have a lot more respect for people who say they are willing to make blackmail and sexual harassment legal along with smoking in business - I disagree strongly, but I admire the consistency of thought...

 

[Chainsaw]

No matter how one feels about smoking, this thread is a good example to me as to why gunownership rights will be facing even tougher scrutiny in the near future.

It shows that it is relatively easy for a majority to repress a minority.

As Pendragon states RKBA is constitutionally protected, but does that really mean much at this point in time, where most in a position of authority have already wiped their arse with that document?

We are in for some rough times-----------Chainsaw

 

[George Dickel]

The other night the wife and I went out to eat. We were seated near a large group conisisting of 4 supposed adults and 5 of the most obnoxious, ill mannered brats imaginable. These brats were running around screaming and yelling at each other and slopping food all over the table and floor. I want kids banned from restaurants, malls, movie theaters and any other public place. I have the right not to be bothered by nasty little rug rats.

Yes I did express my extreme displeasure to the manager and in very ugly terms when she refused to do anything about the situation. Wrote the CEO of the corporation that ownes the chain and received a very nice letter of apology and an assurance that the manager would be spoken with. He wouldn't ban kids though.

 

[bastiat]

Well, Pendragon, that's probably as direct an answer as I can expect. May your chains rest lightly upon you...

 

[MeekandMild]

Bastiat I think your points are quite valid as far as they go. I agree with you you should have the right to run your own bar as you see fit. In 21st century America you are bound by a whole nest of regulations, fire codes, public health codes, tax laws, et cetera so good luck.

Most of the smoking ordinances I see in our town are addressed to conduct on "The Commons". The problem of the commons is one which dates back to medieval times, how to keep one or two good citizens from grazing too many cows and squeezing out the rest of us. I'm afraid that with the passage of the 1960's era civil rights laws relative to "public accomodations", private enterprise has long ago been drawn into the commons, like it or not.

Al, we seem to all be in agreement that it would be unwise, unkind and downright rude for me to walk up to strangers on the commons and pop off a few rounds past their ears. It seems also probable that IF I were stupid enough to do so the burden of public censure would be mine to bear.

On the other hand there are many who believe I should be free to light up my stogie on the commons and place the burden of avoidance on the poor sucker who happens to be sitting there having an asthmatic attack. And he'd damned well better be polite, no cougning in my face or wheezing. I expect him to say "please sir, I'm having trouble breathing," in plain words and with enought deference so as to not offend my delicate sensibilities.

George, a funny thought. We went out to eat a while back and were seated in a booth. A crowd of very "stout" folk came in and were seated in the booth behind us. After a few minutes of being shaken like a martini I asked to be moved to a table. The water buffaloes in the next booth were totally oblivious to the whole thing and kept right on grazing.

 

[Pendragon]

May your chains rest lightly upon you...

 

[Pendragon]

oops

...

 

[publius]

I have a lot more respect for people who say they are willing to make blackmail and sexual harassment legal along with smoking in business

What has blackmail got to do with sexual herassmeant? I mean, blackmail is ordinarily about hiding one's own wrongdoing, or it's about crimes of theft or possibly fraud. Sexual herassmeant laws are about, well, maybe I'm not supposed to say here at THR. Let's just say I can spell, and they're about money.

Sexual herassmeant laws deny the consensual nature of employment. Co as in two as in a free agreement. They can only rest on your right to your job. You have no more right to your job than your employer has a right to your labor. He can ask for whatever he wants, you can leave whenever you want. If you take away half of that equation, saying he can only ask for, or say, whatever is politically correct at the moment, but you can still leave whenever you want, it's no longer a free agreement. Your right to dictate the terms must be based on your right to your job, which I'll say again, you do not have.:banghead:

 

[Pendragon]

I fully understand that line of thought publius.

However, I do not agree with it.


I see blackmail and sexual harassment as very similar and in your line of thinking, they should both be legal - perhaps they should be - but the problem is, you cannot just make those things legal in a vacuum.

Sexual harassment is a form of exploitation. We frown on most forms of overt exploitation in our society and we have passed laws against it.

Are we a less free nation because we cannot get away with chasing our secretaries around the desk?

Could you argue that an employer adopting a "have sex, keep job" policy is guilty of some form of assault or rape?

It is interesting to note that to be convicted of rape, you do not have to commit violence - if someone indicates they do not want to go through with an act and you should reasonably know this and you continue, that is rape.

So... If a woman has a sick child and she has medical coverage for her childs condition - perhaps without expensive medicine his life would be in serious danger - her boss says "come on over to my place and we can discuss your future with the company".

I guess its just tough crap for her and her kid - she makes the decision - sex with creepy boss or her kid gets sicker.

Woohoo! Let freedom ring!

 

[publius]

Are we a less free nation because we cannot get away with chasing our secretaries around the desk?

Yes, matter of fact, we are. First of all, the notion that that was a huge problem at any time is farfetched to all but NOW members, who see men as the enemy of humanity. The laws, far from changing our society, as usual are reflecting politicians following cultural trends, not creating them. Basically, chasing the sec around the desk became even less acceptable than it had previously been, and then the pols got on board and passed laws.

Getting back to those laws...yes, they've made us less free, as all laws do. The question is, to what benefit? In my life, I've seen a couple of business owners, known or strongly suspected by me to be innocent, persecuted by vindictive employees using these laws. They're "are you still beating your wife" laws. An accusation is guaranteed to be expensive and is potentially ruinous. The law has placed that kind of power in (99.9% female) employees' hands, and not surprisingly, many have an expanded view of what herassmeant.

Could you argue that an employer adopting a "have sex, keep job" policy is guilty of some form of assault or rape?

"Guilty" of running a whorehouse would be more accurate. Someone who sleeps with men for money is a whore, plain and simple. If she does it because her kid is sick, guess what? She's still a whore! That's her choice.

Of course, in the example you provided, if the employee is a good one, she could find other work and use COBRA laws to maintain her current insurance coverage for a year while she gets new coverage with her new company. A bad employee, so lame and lazy that she wants to keep working for this exploitive person because she knows she's lucky to have any job at all, is the only kind potentially "protected" by sexual herassmeant laws. She's also the kind most likely to abuse those laws to blackmail her employer.

Just my personal experience, but I've seen a couple of cases of the abuse of these laws. Haven't ever seen a secretary chased around the desk. I don't believe in the class warfare "all bosses are evil" message. I think most are good. I've never seen anything resembling real sexual harassment.

I conclude that the laws solve a non-problem, are not necessary, and are being abused.

 

[Pendragon]

"Guilty" of running a whorehouse would be more accurate. Someone who sleeps with men for money is a whore, plain and simple. If she does it because her kid is sick, guess what? She's still a whore! That's her choice.

Interesting take.

My mom had bosses literally chase her around the office when she was a young woman before she met my dad. She is a proud woman and there is no doubt she would never give in to such scum.

When I was 18, I was hired to be a sales person at a car wash (talk people into more services). Before I could even start, the owner told me he wanted me doing something else because he wanted a girl with nice T+A to be out there selling.

By the way - right now, if the woman with the child was in my shoes, she would be completely hosed:

1. My COBRA payments were $575 per month.
2. If I lose my job right now, my chances of getting another one are miniscule because there are thousands of people in my area who are out of work.
3. I have a serious medical condition that if I go without health care, could kill me literally at any time.

So I guess if Demi Moore was my boss - like in that movie, then I better just let her have her way eh?

I thought about this a lot last night.

I think that your position is morally bankrupt. It is not in the interests of freedom and liberty to allow people to require employees to do degrading things in order to keep their lively hood.

If this were allowed to happen, all sorts of mischief could ensue - even beyond the simple (but utterly sickening) exploitation of individual workers.

If I was "big boss" and you worked for me and your wife taught my child, I could essentially apply coersion and let you know that if my little angel did not get an "A+", that your job would be in jeapordy.

All sorts of disgusting power plays could be going on through out society. Favors being traded in one area for favors in another. This kind of coercion could be used against police who try and write citations or respond to domestic violence calls. It could be used to influence city council votes and land use policy.

Inside of a year, we could turn our communities into miniture bannana republics.

This is why Congress has the power to regulate commerce...