I’m completely sympathetic to your point of view. But, as someone who hates the smell of smoke (except at baseball games….for whatever reason, it is the one place where I feel jipped if I don’t smell a little second-hand smoke), and has never smoked in his life, I have to say: I’ve never had problem finding stuff to do sans the second-hand smoke (did I just use “sans”??….I need to take a break from this blog).

That being said, I also don’t drink, so I don’t go to bars except for the occassional lunch at Brothers (mock away…).

I think your argument offers great support for the opening up more smoke-free establishment.s Obviously there is a market for them if the state is willing to pass legislation to protect those who require or absolutely desire fresh air.

Brie, I’m not sure how to respond to your message. My sympathies seem to be fogging my better judgment.

Second point: while I have absolutely no idea what the effects of secondhand smoke are long-term, I can confidently say that, as Sandy put it, “passive, transitory” secondhand smoke is a huge health problem to people with assorted respiratory problems. I have asthma and allergies, and going to a smoky place can be physically difficult for me. I realize this is a dumb argument without many legs to stand on, but frankly, I don’t want to be forced out of bars and restaurants and my job because other people are smoking.

Marijuana might be a better example. It’s a far less harmful drug than cigarettes or alcohol: it’s physically non-addictive, less habit-forming, literally impossible to overdose on, and the harmful effects to the lungs are less pronounced. I’ve read that crap about “one joint equals five cigarettes,” but most people don’t smoke cigarette-sized joints by themselves, and even if they did, few of them would do that every day. Even then, they could stop at any time without withdrawal.

Anyway, I digress. We still prohibit marijuana due in large part to its historical identification with latinos, public misunderstanding and moral objections.

i couldn’t agree more with hilton. i do not, repeat, do not, pretend to be an expert as to the actual effect of secondhand smoke, but the little research i’ve done suggests the studies are not nearly as conclusive as the general public is led to believe. (and by research, i mean, i’ve gone in and looked at the statistical sampling and constraints of the surveys, not merely read some article about it). the conclusive studies, again, i plan to research this fully before i write about it so this is just the broadest of all possible assertions, suggest a strong correlation between prolonged and frequent exposure to secondhand smoke (i.e., a child growing up in a smoking home) but do not speak to passive, transitory exposure. these results are being extrapolated into assertions about transitory exposure by identifying chemical levels present in the more definitive studies. however, i stand prepared to change my stance on this issue if i find out otherwise as i dig into it.

contrary to what you’ve said steve, i would think the states are justified in an outright ban of smoking. i would, paradoxically, fully support it. the effect of smoking on actual smokers are documented - and are far more definitive than even, say, the risk of heart disease caused by poor diet. i may eat twinkies all my life and never have heart disease due to good genes. if i smoke my entire life, it is almost certain i will get lung cancer or emphysema.

my issue is when the state regulates a perfectly legal activity by passing such a broad, overinclusive prohibition. ban smoking if you feel the state’s interest in public health supports it (which i believe it does). but don’t tell me that the only place i can engage in a legal activity is on a curb. that is paternalism.

I agree it is not always easy for some to find suitable employment that is outside of a bar, restaurant, or other smoke-filled establishment. If anything, though, I would hope that a person in that situation would be willing to find work elsewhere when opportunities arose, or use is as a springboard to getting additional training or education to make themselves more marketable.

Steve, good point. Smoking is a public health concern and it affects all of us through higher health insurance premiums and taxes, and as long as we are footing the bill, perhaps government should have a say. I think it is paternalistic because it says that people are either incapable or unqualified to make their own decisions on where to work or where to recreate, which is false for the vast majority of us.

If it’s a public health issue, meaning the cost to the public, then that simply leads to regulating all kinds of personal conduct, even kinds that don’t arguably have an effect on others, that put a burden on the health system. And then I start ranting and raving about the primacy of the individual and hurling copies of national review at people.

While I don’t know exactly what the data about the health effects say, and I kind of doubt that I would be convinced of the moral panic of second hand smoke exposure, I think it’s a much more convincing rationale to say employees don’t have a choice but to be exposed, etc etc.

Anyway, about the smoking thing, when I hear the word “paternalism” I think of moral legislation (like telling gays they can’t get married, not selling booze on Sundays, etc.). In those cases, the government is deciding how people should live their lives for their own benefit, rather than protecting people from harm caused by other citizens. This is why I don’t think gun laws are “paternalistic” even though the debate has such a moral undertone.

Smoking isn’t a moral issue, it’s a public health issue. I don’t know how I feel about the ban, but calling “paternalism” makes it seem as if the law has no basis in science or fact. It’s meant to protect others from harm, not the smokers themselves, even if that’s a happy byproduct. It would be different if the government banned you from smoking cigarettes altogether–THAT would be paternalism.

Let me repeat, though, I don’t really know how to feel about the ban.

and lindsey, i understand what you are saying; however, allowing the market to dictate these things does work. it’s not merely an ivory tower legal principle. the legislature can exact regulatory influence over the market by say, raising the tax on tobacco products to make them nearly unaffordable. this would cut to the heart of the issue - lowering the number of smokers producing secondhand smoke - without legislating personal preference of one sect of people at the expense of others.

the paradox: i am a smoker. yet i 160% support raising the tobacco tax as well as the impact the smoking ban will have on my health. (i will necessarily cut down, which is a good thing). i do not support the paternalism of this ban.

and yes, morgs, i fear i am a republican. my father is thrilled.

But, I think its a bit paternalistic (and hypocritical per the casino exception) and a sad commentary on where our country is heades when we take away the right of others to strike their own path, and heaven forbid, make their own decisions on where they recreate and how they run their business.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution (I’m kidding….sort of),
Austin

Also, Steve, are TAs/RAs actually included in the bargaining unit?