A Look at Ohio Issue #5
Issue 5 is a proposed law that will prohibit smoking in all privately owned buildings except for private residences, designated hotel rooms, designated nursing home areas, and tobacco shops.
The complete official argument AGAINST Issue 5:
The SmokeFree Ohio proposal on the November ballot is a near total ban on smoking across the state. It is an unreasonable approach that creates an unnecessary intrusion on the rights of individuals and business owners to make their own decisions.
SmokeFree does not allow exceptions for adult-only businesses and virtually criminalizes smokers with potential citations and fines. It is important to realize that given free choice, many restaurants, hotels and other places that serve families are making “no smoking” rules on their own. Since most Ohioans don't smoke, we can rely on traditional American freedoms to decide this issue in the marketplace, as we have always done.
Ohio should take reasonable action to protect non-smokers in public places. It is important to protect families from second-hand smoke, but we should use common sense to make the rules, so both health and individual freedoms are protected.
SmokeFree is an unreasonable, intrusive approach that will create more problems than it solves.
The complete official argument SUPPORTING Issue 5:
Protect your right to breathe smoke-free air inside all restaurants, public places and workplaces.
Secondhand Smoke Kills
The U.S. Surgeon General reports that:
- Secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and lung disease in nonsmokers.
- There is no safe level of exposure.
- The only way to protect health is to eliminate smoking inside public places.
- Separate smoking sections do not protect health.
- Smoke-free policies do not harm business.
For these reasons, the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association have joined with doctors, hospitals and every major health organization in Ohio to urge a YES vote on Issue 5.
What the SmokeFree Workplace Act will do:
- Eliminate secondhand smoke in all public places and workplaces
- Offer equal protection against secondhand smoke to all workers and customers
- Create one fair, level playing field for all businesses
Studies show nonsmokers inhale the equivalent of one and a half cigarettes just by sitting in a restaurant's non-smoking section for two hours. This state law allows children, the elderly, and those with health problems to enjoy restaurants and other public places without jeopardizing their health.
Simply asking smokers to step outside public places will protect the health of the nonsmokers around them and allow all Ohioans to enjoy their favorite places together.
What the SmokeFree Workplace Act will not do:
- SmokeFreeOhio does NOT amend the Constitution.
- The law does NOT prohibit smoking in private residences, vehicles, or outdoors.
Twenty-one Ohio communities and 14 states have strong, successful smoke-free laws in place. The time has come to vote to stop this preventable health hazard and improve the health of all Ohio residents.
Vote YES on Issue 5 so Ohio can breathe smoke-free!
While many of the official arguments that you've read throughout this series are complete bullshit... I find the "AGAINST" argument in this case extremely well-written. It almost perfectly sums up everything I was going to say. Fear not, Loyal Reader, for that doesn't mean I'm not going to say it. :)
Regular visitors to this blog already know what my "big picture" argument will be. I am an advocate for small government and believe that individuals are responsible enough to make personal decisions for themselves. (I hate to be blunt, but I have no other way of saying this...) I pity those that want other adults to make common sense decisions for them. Why do you think they're smarter and more capable than you?
Yes, "SUPPORTING" people, we all know tobacco smoke is unhealthy. If you don't want to breathe it in somebody's privately owned building, there's a simple solution available: Don't go in there! Nobody is forcing you. Who are you to impose your will on someone else when you voluntarily choose to be affected?
If the simple solution of "don't go in there" isn't proactive enough for you, there is also another solution that has worked for a long time: The Free Market. In general, business owners are greedy bastards. If every person that was going to vote in favor of this smoking ban would write a letter or talk to their favorite restaurant proprietor saying they're taking their money to a competitor... I guarantee they'd see results.
How do I know? Because I have taken part in this process and have achieved those results. Ohio law allows for private businesses to choose whether or not to allow licensed citizens to carry a concealed handgun in their building. Several hundred businesses in Ohio have removed their prohibition once they were informed that customers were shopping elsewhere. A few places have changed their policy due to my efforts alone. The Free Market works!
On the flip side, if nobody listens to you and there is a "non-smoking bar" need in the market, you're free to open your own place and become filthy rich filling that niche. Isn't this country great?!
I realize that passing legislation is easier and saves you the legwork. However, it's lazy and goes against everything that makes our system of government the best in the world. Let's focus on issues that serve the public from things outside their control... not the voluntary choice each of has to walk through another person's door.
How will you like it when someone down the line passes legislation against a personal choice that you enjoy that does not have to affect them?
In summary, this whole issue reminds me of an old and unfunny joke. Right now it goes:
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I move my arm like this."
Doctor: "Then don't move your arm like that."
Advocates for this issue want to re-write that joke to say:
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I move my arm like this."
Doctor: "Then let's enact legislation that imposes fines and jail time to criminalize any situation in which you might voluntarily choose to move your arm like that."
Please tell me you realize that's just sad.
This article is permanently linked here.
18 comments
18 Comments:
As we've talked before,. I totally disagree with you on this. I think you're putting principle before practice.
I currently live in a state with a law like this, and previously was in one without a law like this. IT'S MUCH BETTER WITH THE LAW. It's not even an argument.
As much as you try to graft your free market ideals onto this topic, the free market in OH and PA never once produced a smoke-free bar that I knew of.
Keep in mind that smokers only need to (and do) step outside to smoke - it's not like they're banned. The smokers I've talked to don't even mind.
I know we disagree and there's nothing wrong with that.
I understand you think it's much better. However, there is an argument as I bet there are at least a few private business owners that would disagree with you.
I know of plenty of businesses that are smoke free without legislation forcing them to be. So the free market and rights of private owners does in fact work. As for a lack of non-smoking bars, that means one of two things:
A) Either the market can't support one (so why pass laws that the majority doesn't want) or
B) There's millions of dollars to be made for some smart entrepreneur (sp?) that this legislation will take away.
I just want to re-emphasize again that I'm not arguing for the rights of smokers. They have no more "right" to smoke in Joe SixPack's Tavern than I have a "right" to not breathe smoke there.
I'm arguing for the rights of private business owners to do as they choose in the building they paid for.
This issue is different from laws against poisoning food and health detriments that patrons aren't aware of. People can tell instantly that smoking is taking place and they can choose to remain in that unhealthy environment or not. Everybody wins.
This is the last I'm going to say, so this doesn't become too long of a discussion. I hope this at least gets you to think a bit outside of the "private rights" box and in terms of costs vs. benefits.
However, there is an argument as I bet there are at least a few private business owners that would disagree with you.
I would bet that most of them prefer their places smoke-free without having to worry about losing a few customers. If I owned a bar I'd love this law. Smokers would (and they do in NYS -this is not theoretical) still come and drink my beer, but they don't smell the place up.
I know of plenty of businesses that are smoke free without legislation forcing them to be. So the free market and rights of private owners does in fact work.
In some instances. For restaurants and bars it doesn't.
As for a lack of non-smoking bars, that means one of two things:
Not true.
A) Either the market can't support one (so why pass laws that the majority doesn't want) or
B) There's millions of dollars to be made for some smart entrepreneur (sp?) that this legislation will take away.
The market CAN support smoke-free bars. I went to two of them on Friday. The majority DOES want them - smoky bars persist in smoky states because owners don't want to lose a few marginal customers. Your entrepreneur is hypothetical and doesn't exist. His bar would be at a disadvantage because very few smoker patrons would go. Let me make this clear: nonsmokers HATE the smoke in bars, but the barrier to alternatives (not going to bars, going somewhere they don't like) is high.
This issue is different from laws against poisoning food and health detriments that patrons aren't aware of. People can tell instantly that smoking is taking place and they can choose to remain in that unhealthy environment or not. Everybody wins.
I don't win. In a smoky state I either don't go to the bar (not winning) or endure smoke (not winning). Smokers are mostly unaffected - stepping outside is not a big deal.
For example, I could always tell that smoking was taking place in PHI and I hated it but I still went there. With this law in place, I can avoid getting smoky, smokers can still go and step outside if they need to, and PHI's proprietors have a cleaner bar without losing business. Everybody wins.
Have you ever been in a tobacco shop where people were smoking?
I know I haven't but I haven't been to a lot of tobacco shops either.
I love the idea of someone buying a carton of smokes and lighting up right there at the register.
This is the last I'm going to say, so this doesn't become too long of a discussion.
What else do you have to do? I ain't got shit. :) I welcome discussions on this blog, no matter how long they get. That's what this blog is for.
I hope this at least gets you to think a bit outside of the "private rights" box and in terms of costs vs. benefits.
I fear I won't be able to get much outside the "private rights" box because I am thinking about the big picture and not this specific issue.
True, I want more places to be non-smoking. However, the "cost" happens to be the rights of private property owners. The "benefits" are that non-smokers currently patronizing smoky bars will be a little happier? (Given your statement saying the barrier of not going to a bar is high and that you still go to bars). I don't think the "benefits" outweigh the "costs" here.
You admit most non-smokers still go to smoky bars. If it's not important enough to withhold consumer dollars and try to convince businesses to change their smoking policy... how is this important enough for legislation?
Then there are a few things that seem to contradict themselves. You say:
The market CAN support smoke-free bars. I went to two of them on Friday. The majority DOES want them
compared to:
For restaurants and bars it [free market] doesn't [work].
and
Your entrepreneur ... His bar would be at a disadvantage because very few smoker patrons would go.
I think many bars are going to lose a lot of business if this law passes. Why not let the bar owner decide for himself what's best?
Also, the bars you went to on Fri are not an example of the free market as (I'm assuming) they're non-smoking by law.
I don't win. In a smoky state I either don't go to the bar (not winning) or endure smoke (not winning).
Everybody wins when the possibility exists for market opportunities to cater to all. This legislation will restrict the possibility of those accomodations.
If there doesn't happen to be a non-smoking bar somewhere, how is that the fault of one's local tavern owner? Why should he have to change how he runs his business when he doesn't want to?
JHH, I've seen a couple guys at an up-scale cigar shop type of place.
Why do I picture Kramer's smoking lounge? "My face is my livelihood!"
I'm going to move this discussion offline and write you a mail sometime, but I missed one thing, your doctor joke:
"Then let's enact legislation that imposes fines and jail time to criminalize any situation in which you might voluntarily choose to move your arm like that."
This pretty much sums up why I disagree with you. First off, I've never heard of someone going to jail over this in the states that have it, so ease the sensationalism a bit. Most importantly, please realize that this proposal doesn't criminalize ANY SITUATION. It criminalizes ONE THING, which is smoking in bars and restaurants. You keep saying "rights" this and "rights" that, but this bill isn't the Take Rights Away Act. It would only deny one dubious "right" that is bad for public health. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
For some reason you keep trying to make this some giant idealistic crusade. I know your hands-off philosophy is important to you, and it will naturally influence your opinions, and in many cases I agree with you. Here, however, I think you're making a mistake dogmatically adhering to it, ignoring concrete benefits in favor of a hypothetical attack on civil rights.
...so ease the sensationalism a bit.
No sensationalism. A fact-filled statement. Did you read the proposed text? What do you think happens if you break this law? You get fined. If you don't pay the fines? You go to jail. Pay particular attention to what I bolded below.
Section 3794.07:
(B) Promulgate rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code to prescribe a schedule of fines for violations of this chapter designed to foster compliance with the provisions of this chapter. The amount of a fine for a violation of 3794.02 (A) and (B) shall not be less than one hundred dollars and the maximum for a violation shall be twenty five hundred dollars. The amount of a fine for a violation of 3794.02 (D) shall be up to a maximum of one hundred dollars per violation. Each day of a violation shall constitute a separate violation.
Therefore, the Dr joke is right on the money.
It criminalizes ONE THING...
And that one thing is: Private Property Owners deciding for themselves how to run their business. The private property owners are not forcibly harming the health of anyone. Every single person that gets harmed does so voluntarily of their own free will.
You repeatedly keep trying to imply that I'm against criminalizing smoking or that I'm for the rights of smokers. I'm not. I don't want to criminalize the private property owner's ability to choose.
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
Don't make a molehole out of a mountain. It's true, I take privacy rights very seriously. I will always want to preserve those when it's prudent to do so, no matter what the issue is. (Proven by the fact that I do want more non-smoking places. Just not by these means.)
...hypothetical attack on civil rights
This law is hypothetical? Sweet! We have nothing to worry about if it passes!
I've never talked about "civil rights" here which I put in a different class from rights of private property owners. That's neither here nor there though.
and in many cases I agree with you.
This is what confuses me at times. I know that you seem to agree with much of the "big picture" I've presented. We can't trade away small pieces of that picture because this one instance is something we would like. We need to support the whole kit and caboodle. If we don't, you'll eventually lose something that's important to you. You will then try to counter with the logical argument of, "But my decision doesn't have to affect that person! How can you say it's illegal if I do it?" That's the argument I'm presenting.
Do you want to be able to use that argument in the future?
I'm back.
I didn't say that you had the proposed penalties wrong; only that it's not as if people are actually getting tossed into jail for violating this! They're not. Again, I'm trying to think practically in real world terms.
And that one thing is: Private Property Owners deciding for themselves how to run their business
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the one thing is smoking; you think it's representative of something larger. You wish to always favor privacy rights; I consider issues on their merits individually. Arguing further on this won't help anything.
I never once implied that you're pro-smoker. If you got that, you misinterpreted. Trust me, I understand your argument.
I don't quite understand the end of your last comment, to be honest. The writing is a bit confusing.
We can't trade away small pieces of that picture because this one instance is something we would like.
Says who? Our philosophies are different here, it's that simple. I support individual rights but I don't see this particular case as an important right or even a "right" at all and I refuse to make it symbolic.
Oh, and from your last post:
I think many bars are going to lose a lot of business if this law passes. Why not let the bar owner decide for himself what's best?
You really think bar owners are losing business because of the non-smoking rule? No way. No smoker is going to stop going to the bar or out to eat because they have to go outside a few minutes. I won't believe that and I haven't seen it. Absolutely not. Why not let bar owners decide what's best? Because they have not and do not.
I'm back.
Welcome! I'm enjoying the discussion.
it's not as if people are actually getting tossed into jail for violating this! They're not. Again, I'm trying to think practically in real world terms.
They will get tossed into jail if they break the law that I quoted. That's as real-world as it gets. Just because people follow a law doesn't automatically mean that law is just.
You wish to always favor privacy rights; I consider issues on their merits individually.
This isn't true at all and I've said so numerous times. I do look at individual merits. We just disagree on where to draw the line in the sand.
I've stated where I feel it is appropriate to legislate: When that legislation protects patrons that are un-knowingly being harmed. For example, I support laws against using rat poison in food. That's appropriate as the patrons don't choose to be poisoned.
Your line in the sand wants to move my line to include patrons that choose to hurt themselves (patronize a smoky bar) and then complain about it.
Sorry that my rambling about the dangers of "trading away small pieces of the big picture when it is convenient" was confusing.
I was trying to articulate that just because you and I want there to be more non-smoking places, we shouldn't sacrifice private property rights to get there. If we say it's OK in this unnecessary instance, we will have no ground to stand on when they want to take away something else later that we DO care about.
To expound and try to be clearer... I know how much you love my analogies, so don't automatically say "That's ridiculous" and "that would never happen". That's what people probably said ten years ago about a smoking ban.
Scenario:
Being a vegetarian, I can imagine how hard it is for you to find suitable menus at restuarants. I am taking a stab and assuming beans are an important part of your diet. Let's say there were 1500 Ohioans that are allergic to beans and they all put their signatures on a petition and got a statewide Bean Ban on the ballot. Don't you want to be able to counter that illogical action by saying, "Hey! Just don't eat beans! Eat somewhere else. No one is forcing you to eat beans. Don't punish me! You're health is only in danger if you voluntarily choose to hurt it."
That scenario approved by The Coalition for Beans as a Protein Source for Ohio's Children.
And finally,
Why not let bar owners decide what's best? Because they have not and do not.
I have to admit that (to me) is the scariest thing you've said. I'm not an extremist. The government has its place and does some things very well. No way could individuals repel foreign invaders. No way could individuals print and maintain currency. No way could individuals protect themselves from eating rat poison at the local pub.
The mindset that the government knows more than the individual in this case scares me. That's because this law basically says, "The government knows better than you and you can't be trusted to make personal decisions for yourself."
That's a dangerous thing.
Sorry, one more thing.
In talking about "the one thing" this law addresses you said:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the one thing is smoking; you think it's representative of something larger.
It most certainly is about something larger. This isn't about banning smoking. It's not, because there are no mandatory smoking laws on the books. Businesses can choose to have a non-smoking policy if they want.
This is about banning the opportunity for private businesses to choose what they want to do.
OK, I really am done after this, since we're basically reaching the same stopping point. You can even have the last word if you like.
They will get tossed into jail if they break the law that I quoted. That's as real-world as it gets.
If. My point is: this doesn't happen.
This isn't true at all and I've said so numerous times. I do look at individual merits. We just disagree on where to draw the line in the sand.
Yeah, but you said "I will always want to preserve those when it's prudent to do so, no matter what the issue is."
Your line in the sand wants to move my line to include patrons that choose to hurt themselves (patronize a smoky bar) and then complain about it.
Yep, it sure does. I was one of those patrons and now I'm happier. Before I balanced that con against a lot of pros; now it's all pros except for the hangovers.
I was trying to articulate that just because you and I want there to be more non-smoking places, we shouldn't sacrifice private property rights to get there. If we say it's OK in this unnecessary instance, we will have no ground to stand on when they want to take away something else later that we DO care about.
Please stop saying "rights." It's not plural. I fully reject your slippery slope argument here.
The mindset that the government knows more than the individual in this case scares me. That's because this law basically says, "The government knows better than you and you can't be trusted to make personal decisions for yourself."
It does not say that. The law recognizes that the interests of some individuals and businesses do not align with people's best interests (consider antitrust laws as an unrelated example). I believe this to be one of those occasions.
As to your last comment, I simply don't share your viewpoint that this is about something larger and you don't share mine that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (of which I see none). Sorry, chief.
OK, I really am done after this, since we're basically reaching the same stopping point.
True. I think we've both said everything there is to say.
I'm glad there are opinions out there different from my own and we can discuss them. If 90% of people agreed on the same thing, we'd turn into the tyrannical dictatorship of my worst nightmares.
If. My point is: this doesn't happen.
My apologies in that I doubt your self-proclaimed certainty of this. Even if there have been zero fines throughout the whole country, I'll reitarate that people following a law does not make it just. It means they're scared of going to jail. Our system of laws should not be based on fear, it should be based on what's right.
Yeah, but you said "I will always want to preserve those when it's prudent to do so...
And I've clearly and repeatedly stated "when it's prudent to do so". Hint: rat poison.
I was one of those patrons and now I'm happier. Before I balanced that con against a lot of pros;
No offense, but I think "you being happier" is a selfish reason to legislate when other avenues are available of achieving the "so I don't breathe smoke" goal.
Please stop saying "rights." It's not plural.
It is plural. If we need to get into a philosophical discussion about what a "right" is, we can. Currently, a private business owner has many rights. If this law passes, one of them will go away.
It does not say that.
Does too. I know you are but what am I!
The law recognizes that the interests of some individuals and businesses do not align with people's best interests
Again, I agree with you when the public at large is affected against their will. Lawbound non-smoking places where people are forced to go (like courtrooms) is fine. "The people's best interests" can already be served by choosing not to walk through a privately owned door.
...and you don't share mine [viewpoint] that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (of which I see none).
The benefits of not breathing smoke can already be had if one chooses to not hurt themselves.
Since you don't see any drawbacks, I wish you saw that one could be someone telling you to do something you don't want to do on your private property.... even if you don't think it's a big drawback.
Next time we go to the Onion in New Phila and it's smoke-free, you're not allowed to enjoy the cleaner air! ha ha!
Afterwards, however, you can go home to your Private Property and sit in a small smoky room to get all of the smokiness you would have gotten without Ohio's newest law!
I will enjoy the smoke-free air. I won't enjoy how we got it, though. :)
The 5th time we go back to the Onion, we'll enjoy the smoke-free air and the mineral water (as the choice to drink unhealthy beer will be banned).
The 10th time we go back to the Onion, we'll enjoy the air, the water, and the protein bars they only serve (as the choice to eat unhealthy wings and greasy pizza will be banned).
The 20th time we go back to the Onion, we'll enjoy the air, the water, the bland "food", and rubber furniture just in case someone gets bruised from a sharp corner on the tables.
Yay Nannyism! Protect me all-powerful government... Protect me from myself! :)
On a different note, I'm surprised how much inertia the smoking issues had. It seemed like the cool thing to be talking about if you're under 40. I've never heard young people talk much about elections, but a few different people came up to me smiling and said, "No on 4, Yes on 5." This thing had legs.
You're more paranoid than I realized...
Realistic does not equal Paranoid.
"Paranoid" is an offensive and dismissive word that does not apply here. I don't have to tell you that NYC is banning fatty foods just in case people choose to eat them.
I don't think any of those other Onion changes are coming soon to Ohio.
But there's a chance they could if we don't have a set of principles to prevent them.
The 20th time we go back to the Onion, we'll enjoy the air, the water, the bland "food", and rubber furniture just in case someone gets bruised from a sharp corner on the tables.
Realistic?
Post a Comment
<< Home