RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 3.4
by 5
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Government could target your favorite bad habit next
By DENNIS CLAYSON
A prologue: I do not smoke and sincerely believe that the world would be a better place if everyone gave up the habit.
One of the primary functions of a constitution is to keep elites from enacting laws simply because they find some aspect of human behavior repulsive, or even attractive, at any given point in time.
For example, why do we currently have bans on smoking, but no equivalent bans on alcohol consumption? This leads to a larger, but relevant, question. On what grounds can a government assume to have the power to control private behavior?
Without constitutional law, the answer is easy. What do the powerful want? The first national ban on tobacco was imposed on German universities, post offices, military hospitals and Nazi Party offices under direct orders from Adolf Hitler, who evidently didn't like tobacco.
By the 1980s, the American elites had decided that smoking was unbecoming. In 1990, San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.
Other than imposing your own lifestyle on others, what justification can be given for such bans? There are two main arguments. First, smoking is not a "victimless crime." Second-hand smoke can be dangerous. It has been estimated that about 38,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke.
To put that into perspective, over 3 million Americans die every year.
Second, smoking creates increased health costs borne by society. The estimates of the cost of smoking are all over the board. It costs $73 billion, or $85 billion, or $167 billion. The cost is 10 percent of all the health costs in the nation, or it is 60 percent of all the costs depending upon what source you wish to access.
The second argument is interesting in an utilitarian sort of way because it can be applied to any private behavior. Everything a person could do might be seen as costing society something.
Taken at its core, the argument is mechanical, illogical, and even inhumane. For example, some studies have suggested that complete smoking cessation might actually result in an increase in total health care costs in the long run. Elder care is more expensive than the costs of dying rapidly from the typical smoking-related illness.
Given the cost-to-society argument, should we encourage everyone to smoke, or just simplify the whole thing and have everyone over the age of 70 euthanized?
This also demonstrates the hypocrisy inherent in governmental control of private behavior.
What about other health problems that are preventable? It is estimated that one in five Americans between the ages of 15 and 55 are currently infected with one of 50 diseases that can be controlled by a change in behavior.
These diseases and health problems are insidious and are especially dangerous to babies. These ailments, left uncontrolled, lead to damage to the liver and brain. They can cause heart trouble, skin diseases, arthritis and blindness. Several types can never be cured. Once you contract them, you will have them the rest of your life.
Current methods of control for this epidemic have been ineffective. The most common recommended prevention method has a failure rate higher than one-in-six.
Of course, as with smoking and other behavioral problems, this epidemic affects the young and minorities in a disproportional manner. A government study found that 26 percent of teenage girls in America are currently infected. One in five of these has a form of the disease that is incurable.
According to the same study, the infection rate in African-American teenage girls is close to 50 percent.
Every single one of these 50 diseases in this epidemic can be prevented by a change in behavior. So where are the demands for governmental action to ban the behavior that leads to these social ills?
Of course you know by now that I am describing recent studies on the increase in STDs in the United States.
The American elites and their busybody associates currently find smoking to be unacceptable, but they like alcohol and hold sex as the last sacrament. Consequently, smoking can be and should be controlled by government, but sex should not be controlled by government action, and could never be controlled.
None of this has anything to do with the rule of law. It is the perceptions of the powerful imposed on everyone else.
One of the primary functions of a constitution is to keep elites from enacting laws simply because they find some aspect of human behavior repulsive, or even attractive, at any given point in time.
For example, why do we currently have bans on smoking, but no equivalent bans on alcohol consumption? This leads to a larger, but relevant, question. On what grounds can a government assume to have the power to control private behavior?
Without constitutional law, the answer is easy. What do the powerful want? The first national ban on tobacco was imposed on German universities, post offices, military hospitals and Nazi Party offices under direct orders from Adolf Hitler, who evidently didn't like tobacco.
By the 1980s, the American elites had decided that smoking was unbecoming. In 1990, San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.
Other than imposing your own lifestyle on others, what justification can be given for such bans? There are two main arguments. First, smoking is not a "victimless crime." Second-hand smoke can be dangerous. It has been estimated that about 38,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke.
To put that into perspective, over 3 million Americans die every year.
Second, smoking creates increased health costs borne by society. The estimates of the cost of smoking are all over the board. It costs $73 billion, or $85 billion, or $167 billion. The cost is 10 percent of all the health costs in the nation, or it is 60 percent of all the costs depending upon what source you wish to access.
The second argument is interesting in an utilitarian sort of way because it can be applied to any private behavior. Everything a person could do might be seen as costing society something.
Taken at its core, the argument is mechanical, illogical, and even inhumane. For example, some studies have suggested that complete smoking cessation might actually result in an increase in total health care costs in the long run. Elder care is more expensive than the costs of dying rapidly from the typical smoking-related illness.
Given the cost-to-society argument, should we encourage everyone to smoke, or just simplify the whole thing and have everyone over the age of 70 euthanized?
This also demonstrates the hypocrisy inherent in governmental control of private behavior.
What about other health problems that are preventable? It is estimated that one in five Americans between the ages of 15 and 55 are currently infected with one of 50 diseases that can be controlled by a change in behavior.
These diseases and health problems are insidious and are especially dangerous to babies. These ailments, left uncontrolled, lead to damage to the liver and brain. They can cause heart trouble, skin diseases, arthritis and blindness. Several types can never be cured. Once you contract them, you will have them the rest of your life.
Current methods of control for this epidemic have been ineffective. The most common recommended prevention method has a failure rate higher than one-in-six.
Of course, as with smoking and other behavioral problems, this epidemic affects the young and minorities in a disproportional manner. A government study found that 26 percent of teenage girls in America are currently infected. One in five of these has a form of the disease that is incurable.
According to the same study, the infection rate in African-American teenage girls is close to 50 percent.
Every single one of these 50 diseases in this epidemic can be prevented by a change in behavior. So where are the demands for governmental action to ban the behavior that leads to these social ills?
Of course you know by now that I am describing recent studies on the increase in STDs in the United States.
The American elites and their busybody associates currently find smoking to be unacceptable, but they like alcohol and hold sex as the last sacrament. Consequently, smoking can be and should be controlled by government, but sex should not be controlled by government action, and could never be controlled.
None of this has anything to do with the rule of law. It is the perceptions of the powerful imposed on everyone else.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
cross1242 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:01 PM:
" In his column this week, Prof. Clayson creates more mystery for me than argument to rebut. He’s going after “the elites” who, by themselves apparently, are passing laws prohibiting peoples’ assorted bad habits. I am uncertain who those “elites” are. Clearly, they don’t have any power to prohibit anything on their own. That can be done only by the usual suspects of our elected representatives. But, to save everyone’s time, I assume that “the elites” is his euphemism for “liberals.”
But, there is another mystery. He writes about two subjects: smoking and sex. However, I can’t really tell whether he wants our representatives in the law-making process to pull back from regulating smoking or to enact new laws prohibiting sex. Or, perhaps he’s just pointing out the irony of the situation if not hypocrisy.
On the matter of smoking, I need to point out that smoking is NOT prohibited by the law. No one can be arrested and jailed just for smoking. Actually, what the law does is keep people who are smoking right now away from the rest of us. That also makes smoking highly inconvenient. And making it inconvenient is a not-so-subtle motivation to stop smoking entirely. The fact that the law works by discouraging conduct rather that outright prohibition of conduct would seem to deprive Prof. Clayson of his main point. He can’t claim that the “elites” have prohibited one thing but not another when, in fact, whoever the “elites” are have not prohibited what he claims they have prohibited.
Prof. Clayson mentions that the Nazis prohibited smoking. I take it that his point on that argument is that if we limit smoking that we are, somehow, simpatico with Nazis. The argument is a smear rather than a rational argument that smoking should not be prohibited.
He also suggests that, “Elder care is more expensive than the costs of dying rapidly from the typical smoking-related illness.” In that, Prof. Clayson joins the company of Jonathan Swift who satirically suggested that the English solve some social problems by eating Irish children.
Prof Clayson’s ultimate point seems to be that if smoking is so bad, then why the “elites” haven’t done something about sex since it’s the cause of so much disease. I can’t claim that there is no problem from profligate sex in our society. However, I can point out that there is a major difference between smoking and sex. Smoking is frequently a public activity. Sex, just by its nature, is almost always a private activity. And the law has a real problem in enforcing a prohibition against private activity. Unless the government is going to put television cameras in every bedroom, it isn’t going to be able to find people who are “committing” sex and arrest them.
At one time, our laws prohibited fornication. That law was passed originally to enforce morality and not just to reduce disease. It was repealed because it couldn’t be enforced.
In any case, civil society is NOT in the business of enforcing private morality. (It leaves that to religion and parents.) It is only in the business of prohibiting that conduct that is so egregious that it must lock up people as punishment.
Most important, I suggest that most people should be offended at Prof. Clayson’s remark, “American elites … hold sex as the last sacrament.” Do you or ANYONE you know actively promote young people engaging in sex? If your answer is “no,” then what does Prof. Clayson mean by calling it a “sacrament”? I’d suggest that he does so just as a gratuitous smear of the liberals he hates so much. The reality, I’d suggest, is that even those parents who do not teach “wait until you are married,” still try to teach their children that they aren’t ready for sex at their age.
And, it’s hardly a “sacrament” when society, through its laws, punishes people who use sex is such that they need to be punished by feeling the steel for a while. That includes rape, sex with those too young to consent, and commercial sex. But, society also leaves the teaching of discipline regarding sex to parents – something of which I would expect Prof. Clayson to approve. Instead he may be suggesting that just for consistency, since we have “prohibited” smoking maybe fornication should be made a crime again.
As long as Prof. Clayson is talking about whether kids should be prohibited from having sex, he gets in a crack that, “The most common recommended prevention method has a failure rate higher than one-in-six.” Presumably, he’s talking about condom use – something that many in society encourage to try to cut the rate of disease and unwanted pregnancy. In that, Prof. Clayson tries to return to scaring kids away from sex. The “failure rate” is variable on a long list of factors including what is considered a “failure.” (That is, failure to prevent pregnancy, disease, or several other possible definitions.) But, the failure rate drops to 1% with proper use.
In the end, things aren’t what Prof. Clayson suggests they are.
"
But, there is another mystery. He writes about two subjects: smoking and sex. However, I can’t really tell whether he wants our representatives in the law-making process to pull back from regulating smoking or to enact new laws prohibiting sex. Or, perhaps he’s just pointing out the irony of the situation if not hypocrisy.
On the matter of smoking, I need to point out that smoking is NOT prohibited by the law. No one can be arrested and jailed just for smoking. Actually, what the law does is keep people who are smoking right now away from the rest of us. That also makes smoking highly inconvenient. And making it inconvenient is a not-so-subtle motivation to stop smoking entirely. The fact that the law works by discouraging conduct rather that outright prohibition of conduct would seem to deprive Prof. Clayson of his main point. He can’t claim that the “elites” have prohibited one thing but not another when, in fact, whoever the “elites” are have not prohibited what he claims they have prohibited.
Prof. Clayson mentions that the Nazis prohibited smoking. I take it that his point on that argument is that if we limit smoking that we are, somehow, simpatico with Nazis. The argument is a smear rather than a rational argument that smoking should not be prohibited.
He also suggests that, “Elder care is more expensive than the costs of dying rapidly from the typical smoking-related illness.” In that, Prof. Clayson joins the company of Jonathan Swift who satirically suggested that the English solve some social problems by eating Irish children.
Prof Clayson’s ultimate point seems to be that if smoking is so bad, then why the “elites” haven’t done something about sex since it’s the cause of so much disease. I can’t claim that there is no problem from profligate sex in our society. However, I can point out that there is a major difference between smoking and sex. Smoking is frequently a public activity. Sex, just by its nature, is almost always a private activity. And the law has a real problem in enforcing a prohibition against private activity. Unless the government is going to put television cameras in every bedroom, it isn’t going to be able to find people who are “committing” sex and arrest them.
At one time, our laws prohibited fornication. That law was passed originally to enforce morality and not just to reduce disease. It was repealed because it couldn’t be enforced.
In any case, civil society is NOT in the business of enforcing private morality. (It leaves that to religion and parents.) It is only in the business of prohibiting that conduct that is so egregious that it must lock up people as punishment.
Most important, I suggest that most people should be offended at Prof. Clayson’s remark, “American elites … hold sex as the last sacrament.” Do you or ANYONE you know actively promote young people engaging in sex? If your answer is “no,” then what does Prof. Clayson mean by calling it a “sacrament”? I’d suggest that he does so just as a gratuitous smear of the liberals he hates so much. The reality, I’d suggest, is that even those parents who do not teach “wait until you are married,” still try to teach their children that they aren’t ready for sex at their age.
And, it’s hardly a “sacrament” when society, through its laws, punishes people who use sex is such that they need to be punished by feeling the steel for a while. That includes rape, sex with those too young to consent, and commercial sex. But, society also leaves the teaching of discipline regarding sex to parents – something of which I would expect Prof. Clayson to approve. Instead he may be suggesting that just for consistency, since we have “prohibited” smoking maybe fornication should be made a crime again.
As long as Prof. Clayson is talking about whether kids should be prohibited from having sex, he gets in a crack that, “The most common recommended prevention method has a failure rate higher than one-in-six.” Presumably, he’s talking about condom use – something that many in society encourage to try to cut the rate of disease and unwanted pregnancy. In that, Prof. Clayson tries to return to scaring kids away from sex. The “failure rate” is variable on a long list of factors including what is considered a “failure.” (That is, failure to prevent pregnancy, disease, or several other possible definitions.) But, the failure rate drops to 1% with proper use.
In the end, things aren’t what Prof. Clayson suggests they are.
"
css wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:29 PM:
" Give me a break Leo46... if you don't like smoking establishments, don't go to them. This is the first time I agree with Clayton and he made a better argument than I can to show the hypocracy of government.
I can point to Minnesota's smoking ban and show many small businesses closing because of it. This anti-smoking bill is way off target from real issues effecting Iowa. "
I can point to Minnesota's smoking ban and show many small businesses closing because of it. This anti-smoking bill is way off target from real issues effecting Iowa. "
jcbr wrote on Mar 23, 2008 3:54 PM:
" is smokeing the lesser of evils ? ban smokeing in bars / ban booze in bars WHAT ? well lets take a look / booze causes many marriage breakups / booze causes pickled liver / booze indirectly causes death on the public hiways / booze causes wellfare thru lose of employment / booze causes abuse in the home and towards freinds / ban one ban both "
cross1242 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:31 PM:
" jcbr: I have no quarrel with your recitation of the problems caused by booze. But, it's also one thing where we can say that we already tried to ban it and the ban didn't work. On smoking, it seems to be working. That is, people seem to be stop smoking or not start.
If there were something else to try to get people to use booze responsibly, we should try it. "
If there were something else to try to get people to use booze responsibly, we should try it. "
Newswatcher wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:56 PM:
" jcbr has said it in a nutshell.
I personally hate smoking. I have extremely sensitive sinuses and cannot be around it. I always appreciate fresh air.
But, as jcbr has reminded us: it is a slippery slope when the Govt gets so involved in our daily lives that it tells us what we can't put in our bodies, what we can't say to another, all because of 'offending others'. Well, eventually this kind of Govt will be SO DARN BIG that it will offend ALL OF US. I choose to sit FAR from smokers and I wish no one smoked, but if I owned a business and the Govt told me I had to limit my customers, I would be red-faced.
Read it here folks, the Govt is getting too involved in our daily lives!
Signed by a non-smoker for life (by choice) "
I personally hate smoking. I have extremely sensitive sinuses and cannot be around it. I always appreciate fresh air.
But, as jcbr has reminded us: it is a slippery slope when the Govt gets so involved in our daily lives that it tells us what we can't put in our bodies, what we can't say to another, all because of 'offending others'. Well, eventually this kind of Govt will be SO DARN BIG that it will offend ALL OF US. I choose to sit FAR from smokers and I wish no one smoked, but if I owned a business and the Govt told me I had to limit my customers, I would be red-faced.
Read it here folks, the Govt is getting too involved in our daily lives!
Signed by a non-smoker for life (by choice) "
shouldbemayor wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:37 PM:
" CSS, could you please provide examples of businesses that were doing fine, but went out of business when Minnesota enacted a smoking ban? I would really like to see the list. "
shouldbemayor wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:53 AM:
" Newswatcher, should big government repeal the "18 or older" law to purchase tobacco? What about the 21 to buy booze? Government is here to protect us. Tobacco KILLS. Secondhand smoke KILLS. Booze only kills those who drink it. Drunk driving kills others, but that is already illegal. Doesn't it make sense that since seconhand smoke KILLS 400 Iowan's a year, we should be protected against it? "
cross1242 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:28 AM:
" A reminder to everyone. No one is proposing that smoking be PROHIBITED. That is, there would be no law that says that all smoking is illegal.
You would still be able to smoke in your home, your car, and outside anywhere. True, it's going to be inconvenient to seek out one of those places when your addiction grabs you.
Maybe you should kick the habit.
For those who object on principle that the law shouldn't be telling people what they can and can't do, remember the principle that "your freedom to swing you arms ends where my nose begins." And, with smoking, my nose is always getting socked. "
You would still be able to smoke in your home, your car, and outside anywhere. True, it's going to be inconvenient to seek out one of those places when your addiction grabs you.
Maybe you should kick the habit.
For those who object on principle that the law shouldn't be telling people what they can and can't do, remember the principle that "your freedom to swing you arms ends where my nose begins." And, with smoking, my nose is always getting socked. "
ponders wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Professor Clayson is a marketing professor as indicated in his credits. Week after week he professes to be an expert on everything and anything conservative, while doing a poor job of marketing his opinions. He does however entertain, which is the purpose of the newspaper. He takes his readers on a roller coaster ride of unrelated statements. He has stated in previous columns that if we can't follow his argument we are obviously not well educated. I have come to understand his style completely and am educated enough to know that he is correct and I will in the future carry my lunch. "
Newswatcher wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:06 PM:
" If govt is here to protect us, then why are so many people too fat?
Govt needs to ration our food? Ban sweets or other fattening foods?
I hate smoke, too. But it's still a slippery slope to get Govt involved in this.
Duh Mayor, under 18 you're a minor, there's lots you can't do. 21 for alcohol is the biggest contributor to underage drinking and binge drinking. "
Govt needs to ration our food? Ban sweets or other fattening foods?
I hate smoke, too. But it's still a slippery slope to get Govt involved in this.
Duh Mayor, under 18 you're a minor, there's lots you can't do. 21 for alcohol is the biggest contributor to underage drinking and binge drinking. "
cross1242 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:24 PM:
" I was thinking that there's one aspect of smoking, drinking, and sex that directly affect Prof. Clayson in his environment at UNI.
It's been a long time since colleges saw themselves "in loco parentis." Instead, colleges see all their students as adults and how they deal with the temptations of a young life as not their business.
I don't want to return to the days of colleges considering themselves "in loco parentis." However, I think that at least for undergraduates they need to recognize that they really need to educate their students on how to deal with the new major choices that they face in their lives. If they don't, then all the usual academic education is going to go to waste because of the unfortunate extracurricular education they got in college.
They need to encourage their undergraduates to adopt adult attitudes on smoking, alcohol, and sex. I don't think that too much imagination is required on how that might be done. "
It's been a long time since colleges saw themselves "in loco parentis." Instead, colleges see all their students as adults and how they deal with the temptations of a young life as not their business.
I don't want to return to the days of colleges considering themselves "in loco parentis." However, I think that at least for undergraduates they need to recognize that they really need to educate their students on how to deal with the new major choices that they face in their lives. If they don't, then all the usual academic education is going to go to waste because of the unfortunate extracurricular education they got in college.
They need to encourage their undergraduates to adopt adult attitudes on smoking, alcohol, and sex. I don't think that too much imagination is required on how that might be done. "
jcbr wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:36 PM:
" in my eariler post i was making the point gov is taking away our freedoms of choice / reverse pyhs / banning booze in the 40 s the mobs and enforcement caused a alota deaths / that era shouldnt be repeated / to be fair to all let the owners decide to be smoke free or smokeing allowed / to parfrize guns cars booze drugs dont kill its the people who use them wrongly / i think smokers can even agree to ban smokeing in restarants or around small children / in some degree smokers are at fault by not respecting nonsmokers requests to not smoke near them / both parties canbe unpolite / to put the record right i do smoke and drink / 1-3 drinks when i go danceing / smokers will respect nonsmokers if nonsmokers respect smokers / but the bussiness men should have the right to run his own bussiness to allow or ban smokeing and the public has the choice where to go / as for workers i would guess most bar employees already smoke / tnks "
think wrote on Mar 24, 2008 5:32 PM:
" Fast kills. Time to get rid of pizza and fast food. Also if roll cages and fire suits& helmets were required in cars-look at the saving of life. More people could be saved by making the cars meet NASCAR safety standards. "
shouldbemayor wrote on Mar 24, 2008 6:13 PM:
" Newswatcher, a person being fat doesn't kill their kids, the people sitting next to them, their waitress or coworkers. Secondhand smoke kills 400 Iowans a year.
Duh Newswatcher, the ONLY reason under 18 is a minor is because that is what the law says. It could be 16, 21 or any age we decide. It is an age that we require people to be before they can do certain activities. Smoke 18, drink 21, join the military 18, drive 16. It's all "big government" making laws to infringe on our rights, right watcher? "
Duh Newswatcher, the ONLY reason under 18 is a minor is because that is what the law says. It could be 16, 21 or any age we decide. It is an age that we require people to be before they can do certain activities. Smoke 18, drink 21, join the military 18, drive 16. It's all "big government" making laws to infringe on our rights, right watcher? "
hillaryc wrote on Mar 24, 2008 6:16 PM:
" One comment on all this Government regulation to protect us from every ill that might befall us. I really think this talk of restricting a 16 year old to drive in a car by themselves is just plain silly. If we are to the point that we don't trust 16 year olds to drive don't give them a license,, if we are to the point that we don't think people should smoke,, don't allow them to smoke anywhere but quit wasting my money debating stupid incremental laws every year and be done with the crap. Pure stupidity to sit here and argue about what degree of limitation they should put on something that apparently kills everyone it comes in contact with. What a flippin waste of taxpayer dollars "
Get Real wrote on Mar 24, 2008 6:28 PM:
" Minnesota is doing just fine with the smokingt ban, small businesses are closing in every aspect, if they do or don't have smoking. It's the chain places taking the business away and the fault is with the consumer.
I visited the Southtown for the first time BECAUSE they went to non smoking and I will return as the food was good too, though there are still remains of dull/old smoke smell, hmmm.... didn't smell the booze though? I just don't equate smoking and alcohol, no ones booze they were drinking next to me made me stink like a ciggy, or could cause me to possibly get cancer. "
I visited the Southtown for the first time BECAUSE they went to non smoking and I will return as the food was good too, though there are still remains of dull/old smoke smell, hmmm.... didn't smell the booze though? I just don't equate smoking and alcohol, no ones booze they were drinking next to me made me stink like a ciggy, or could cause me to possibly get cancer. "
me wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:25 PM:
" i don't really see how anyone can actual argue against a smoking ban in public places. secondhand smoke kills people every day. it could be a few years off someones life if not many, many more. the government is here to protect us, and if they don't pass this bill i would say they don't care about the people and their families that deal with the affects of second hand smoke. you want to kill yourself, fine! but do it away from my family and friends! it's against the law the drink and drive, it's against the law to do drugs, it's against the law to drink underage, smoke underage, there are laws regulating age differences in sexual relationships, but something that kills people every single day can be done by pregnant women, around small children, in resturants, bars, parks, and so on. can someone please explain to me how the heck that makes any sense??? "
jtjbr wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:37 AM:
" Get Real the South Town was completely remodeled before they went non smoking.So the smoke you are smelling isn't comming from a cigarette. "
css wrote on Mar 25, 2008 1:06 AM:
" Shouldbemayor: The proof is my friend that owns a small bar in a small town in MN that lost over 60% of his business is closing.
His letter states "I was doing well against many of the bars (IE: 2 others) in town until this smoking ban went into effect. Unfortunately, many people are staying home now and I'm losing money because of it. Fridays and Saturdays aren't as busy. I haven't had a standing room only situation in this bar since the law passed. I've decided that I'll be closing the bar so I don't eat into my savings."
His letter also states that other bars have lost business and now there are too many bars in his town to support just non-smokers, although the occassional smoker do come by for a couple drinks.
His last statement about the issue was "but what makes this worse is that I'm not the only one thinking of closing their doors in a few other towns. Good luck in Iowa on the smoking issue as they'll deal with the same problem. It's the small towns that'll suffer, not cities like Duluth or the twin cities."
So, his is a good arguement to allow only cities to make the call... not the state.
Enough Said...
"
His letter states "I was doing well against many of the bars (IE: 2 others) in town until this smoking ban went into effect. Unfortunately, many people are staying home now and I'm losing money because of it. Fridays and Saturdays aren't as busy. I haven't had a standing room only situation in this bar since the law passed. I've decided that I'll be closing the bar so I don't eat into my savings."
His letter also states that other bars have lost business and now there are too many bars in his town to support just non-smokers, although the occassional smoker do come by for a couple drinks.
His last statement about the issue was "but what makes this worse is that I'm not the only one thinking of closing their doors in a few other towns. Good luck in Iowa on the smoking issue as they'll deal with the same problem. It's the small towns that'll suffer, not cities like Duluth or the twin cities."
So, his is a good arguement to allow only cities to make the call... not the state.
Enough Said...
"
jtjbr wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:21 AM:
" Leo 46 why do you think you need a law to do what you should be able to do with pure numbers ? It has been said 80% of the states people are non smokers . If non smokers boycotted bars and resturants unless they went non smoking don't you think the would become non smoking rather than go broke ? Maybe you should open your own establishment so you can run it the way you wish.A resturant owner or bar owner invests thousands up to millions of their own dollars to go into business . So what gives you or me the right to tell that person how to run his business ? The key word is business. Without business no business can survive smoking or non smoking .Thats why our country is special we have the right to choose.Thats why your beliefs should not be forced on me or my beliefs forced on you. We in the USA have the right to choose. There is no reason we can't coexist.If you wish to patronize a non smoking establishment thats your right to choose. As it should be the business owners right to choose weather to cater to smokers or non smokers . The state should not dictate to a business how it should be run.We are adults and as so have the right to make decisions for ourself .There should be laws to protect the children and the innocent.That being said any business that allowes minors to come and go freely should be non smoking. But adults should have the right to choose .Businesses should have the right to choose. This could be accomplished by each business posting a sign in plain sight at the door smoking or non smoking.Any allowing children would be non smoking without question.After that it would be up to the adults to choose.Wouldn't that make more sence that the state giving up or losing millions and millions of tax dollars ? We have freedom of speach,freedom of religion,freedom of the press,and the right to congregate but this law would dictate that a bar or resturant full of smokers can't light up.Who would that hurt other than those who choose to be there.In the same light if a smoker were to stop at a non smoking bar or resturant they would have to go smoke free or go home.These things can all be done in a way everyone gets what they want without anyone forcing their beliefs or ways or vices on others.Couldn't our politicians time be better spent helping schools,building roads,stoping home foreclosures or bringing jobs to the state. "
hawkiiis wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:47 AM:
" If you've never seen the 1993 movie 'The Demolition Man', you should watch it. As mind-numbing as it might be, it depicts a future society completely controlled by government. No smoking, drinking, physical contact, swearing, salt, non-nutritional foods, etc. Kind of crazy? Where do you think we're headed??? "
shouldbemayor wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:52 AM:
" jtbr I could not agree with you more. The US is set up on a Democracy. Majority rules. Our lawmakers feel a smoking ban is proper. They were voted in. If you don't like it, vote them out. The majority of America does not smoke, why should we have to put up with it in the majority of businesses. Smoking KILLS people. It's that simple. To argue that it is OK to KILL people is silly.
CSS, perhaps your "friend" with a small town bar does not have the business sense to compete in todays market. Are you saying that only smokers drink? Are you saying that smokers only drink when they can smoke? Both are not true. I have many smoking friends who enjoy going to non-smoking bars, and who will still go after the ban is in place. Perhaps your "friend" doesn't have the business sense to run a bar in today's changing world. Or, perhaps he/she enjoyed running a business that was KILLING everyone who entered. Just a couple thoughts. Anyway, that was one bar, I was under the impression you were getting a list of bars going out of business in MN. Are they all owned by your "friend?" "
CSS, perhaps your "friend" with a small town bar does not have the business sense to compete in todays market. Are you saying that only smokers drink? Are you saying that smokers only drink when they can smoke? Both are not true. I have many smoking friends who enjoy going to non-smoking bars, and who will still go after the ban is in place. Perhaps your "friend" doesn't have the business sense to run a bar in today's changing world. Or, perhaps he/she enjoyed running a business that was KILLING everyone who entered. Just a couple thoughts. Anyway, that was one bar, I was under the impression you were getting a list of bars going out of business in MN. Are they all owned by your "friend?" "
shouldbemayor wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:13 AM:
" You know, every one of these arguments against the smoking ban was used when they raised the drinking age to 19 and then to 21.
"Bars will go out of business"
"Government is trying to legislate morality"
However, there are more bars and restaraunts than any time in history, and more people drink than ever before.
Let me ask you this. If bars could choose a drinking age 20 or 21, how many would choose 21? NONE.
Smoking KILLS. It's that simple. Make it illegal in bars, everyone will be better off. Even the bar owners. "
"Bars will go out of business"
"Government is trying to legislate morality"
However, there are more bars and restaraunts than any time in history, and more people drink than ever before.
Let me ask you this. If bars could choose a drinking age 20 or 21, how many would choose 21? NONE.
Smoking KILLS. It's that simple. Make it illegal in bars, everyone will be better off. Even the bar owners. "
OFJohn wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:00 AM:
" I live in Florida now and have for quite a while. My wife used to work at a restaurant/bar for 10 years and was working there when Florida instituted its non-smoking law. The owner of the restaurant and the general manager are both good friends and they had the same concerns about loss of business. Simply, it never happened. In fact, business has continued to increase over the years and they are actually happy with the law now. They get fewer complaints from customers and have found they have been able to attract better help from people that didn't want to work in a smokey place where they would have had to breath and smell the smoke and go home stinking like the perverbial ash tray. So, actual situations have proven the opposite of the imagined ones opponents of this bill are proposing could happen. "
jtjbr wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:03 AM:
" shouldbemayor In a democracy majority rules.But its not very democratic to persicute the minotity.To alow the minority no place in public to congregate .Its not very democratic to cast out 20% of the voting public either.To turn them into second class citizens.Why would it bother you or any non smoker if smokers want to hang out together and as you put it smoke themselfs to death? And if a business owner wants to supply the venue what business is it of yours? You also should go open your own business then you could run it the way you want.Put your money and work on the line then judge.But isnt it kind of hypocritical of the state to sell legal tobacco products to the public then tell them to go hang out on the street corner with the drug dealers to use them.Why doesnt the state just outlaw the sale of tobacco? Can't do that making too much money off the sale of said product. In the real world the supplier is more guilty than the user.But you are right about one thing. We should vote out of office any politician that votes to take our rights away from us.Clayton was saying it. Today it is smoking what is it tomorrow.No one should give up their rights without a fight!Would society be better if we all just worked,slept and paid taxes then worked again ? "
Kramerica wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:53 PM:
" We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Representative Republic. Yes, there's a difference. "
shouldbemayor wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:59 PM:
" No one should give up their rights without a fight. EXACTLY. Now, show me where you have the right to smoke, and kill others.
So, is it majority rules or majority persecutes minority? I get the feeling if the majority of the people smoked and they wanted to outlaw it, you would see it totally different.
I'm not being a hypocrite. I don't smoke, I hate smoking. I have seen many people who have smoked battle cancer and other diseases and I have seen that secondhand smoke kills 400 Iowan's a year. The fact that ANYONE can argue that smoking is a good thing and should be allowed in public places is crazy.
I am not certain, but I don't think the State sells tobacco as you put it. I do believe that they tax tobacco. Not enough, but they do tax it. I could be wrong on the sales part. If I am, shame on Iowa for selling those death sentences.
"
So, is it majority rules or majority persecutes minority? I get the feeling if the majority of the people smoked and they wanted to outlaw it, you would see it totally different.
I'm not being a hypocrite. I don't smoke, I hate smoking. I have seen many people who have smoked battle cancer and other diseases and I have seen that secondhand smoke kills 400 Iowan's a year. The fact that ANYONE can argue that smoking is a good thing and should be allowed in public places is crazy.
I am not certain, but I don't think the State sells tobacco as you put it. I do believe that they tax tobacco. Not enough, but they do tax it. I could be wrong on the sales part. If I am, shame on Iowa for selling those death sentences.
"
Sparkette wrote on Mar 25, 2008 3:45 PM:
" When the Government came for the smokers, I remained silent; I was not a smoker. / When they came for the drinkers, I remained silent; I was not a drinker. / When they came for the Obese, I did not speak out; I was not obese. / When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. / Once governement starts telling a PRIVATE business owner what they can and cannot do with their business, we've moved from a free country into a type of Totalitarian society. This is exactly what is happening here. Government is telling business owners how they can run their business. If I don't like a TV show, I turn the channel, if I don't like the smokey resurant, I leave. But, I cannot support a ban, simply because if I support this ban, what will be banned next?? "
Think wrote on Mar 25, 2008 4:41 PM:
" Once upon a time there used to a be a thing called private property. So what’s next farmers can’t keep hunters off their land as it better for all to allow them to hunt where ever they chose. What part a PRIVATE do you people not get? I hope they make a law that requires you to jog 90 minutes a week. Look at all the good that comes from proper exercise. I’m sure all the men that laid down their life in all the wars won’t care they died for freedom. "
Leo46 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 5:47 PM:
" jtjbr I already stated the reason we need the law. So have others. Also, no one is prohibiting smokers from congregating anywhere. Just prohibiting them from invading the majorities breathing space. What is wrong with that? If your smoking is so bad you have to have a cigarette every 30 minutes, you are in serious need of help. "
me wrote on Mar 25, 2008 5:55 PM:
" the government regulates almost everything we do and use. why is regulating the use of tobacco (a product that kills so many) any different? i can buy many chemicals that are harmful if inhaled but if i go let those off in a bar i'm sure i'm going to jail and if someone were to die from it i'd go for life...what is the difference?? "
oldandgrey wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:07 PM:
" Leo46, there are several places in the Cedar Valley that are non smoking that you should try, both of the Brown bottles, Montage, 63 Diner, Doughy Joeys, Maid-Rite in Cedar Falls, Bourbon Street, Becks on College Hill, I'm sure I have left out some, they all have flourished since they went non-smoking. If you have a good product people will come back, so owners that are worried about losing business if this law is passed make sure your product is good and your place is clean and do not give people a reason not to visit. "
OFJohn wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:01 AM:
" Question for those who oppose businesses and our lives being too regulated...What about prostitution? Could be done on private property. If it were taxed and regulated, could be fairly safe, health-wise. Wouldn't really affect and non-users, so to speak. If our lives are being too regulated, then how about gay marriage? Isn't that the ultimate example of government regulating our personal lives? Legalization of marijuana. Could very well be privatized like liquor, licensed, taxed, etc. I could go on and on, but it seems that government regulates and controls our lives all the time. Sometimes in the best interest of the public, many times as a result of public outcry. Where do we draw the line? Great question. But I think preventing health problems that are caused against the majorities' own will seems pretty reasonable to me. "
sparkette wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:23 PM:
" PRIVATE: Adj - belonging to a particular person. / Just thought I'd point that out. Since we seem to be losing the point of part of this argument. PRIVATE business or PRIVATE property, neither belong to the government. What happens when they ban smoking in businesses, and then they decide saturated fats are causing too many health problems and deaths that the tax payers are paying for? Then, they decide that the only way to lower healthcare costs, reduce deaths and hospitalizations due to high cholesterol, heart disease, obesity, etc is to ban anything that contains saturated fats. Then, they add to that ban your PRIVATE kitchen, and that you need to eliminate from your PRIVATE kitchen all items that contain saturated fats? Think about it... "
OFJohn wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:26 PM:
" But sparkette,
When you are home, you are in private. When you are in a business, you are in PUBLIC. Therefore, your actions at home affect only you, your family or persons you have allowed in your home. Your actions at a business affect all others at that business that have no relationship with you nor input into your actions. HUGE difference. As a side, your point also has to make the supposition that many of the people who support a ban on smoking in public facilities would also support a ban on activities in the privacy of one's home. I think even you'll have to admit that is a huge jump to make. I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of the liberals who support the smoking ban are also some of the strongest opponents of government intruding on one's private life at home. I don't care what side of the poltical fence people reside on, but the governmental interference of activities in the privacy of American homes will cause a huge backlash. "
When you are home, you are in private. When you are in a business, you are in PUBLIC. Therefore, your actions at home affect only you, your family or persons you have allowed in your home. Your actions at a business affect all others at that business that have no relationship with you nor input into your actions. HUGE difference. As a side, your point also has to make the supposition that many of the people who support a ban on smoking in public facilities would also support a ban on activities in the privacy of one's home. I think even you'll have to admit that is a huge jump to make. I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of the liberals who support the smoking ban are also some of the strongest opponents of government intruding on one's private life at home. I don't care what side of the poltical fence people reside on, but the governmental interference of activities in the privacy of American homes will cause a huge backlash. "
sparkette wrote on Mar 26, 2008 4:29 PM:
" But, OFJohn, you are still missing the point I'm trying to make. The business is a PRIVATE business; you are not in public when at a business you are in PRIVATE. Yes, you have to be in public to get to that business, but the business itself is PRIVATE. The police won't write tickets for parking in a fire lane unless the business owner calls and complains, you or I are told to talk to the business owner. That is because; unless the owner tells the police to come and write the ticket, they can't because it is PRIVATE property. Moreover, it is not such a huge difference between a business and a home, where the law is concerned. They are both PRIVATE property. Yes, I used a huge, outlandish example to get my point across, hoping against hope that it was so outlandish that the point would be taken, without the reader believing the actual circumstance could happen. That didn’t happen, so I’ll speak as plain as I can. Both your house and your business are PRIVATE they are not public. The government can and should govern the public, BUT NOT THE PRIVATE. I do not want the government in my PRIVATE life, either in my home or in my business, nor should you nor should anyone. "
cross1242 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 4:43 PM:
" sparkette, who is the "they" that you repeatedly mention as doing all kinds of awful things to the people?
The decisions are made by our representatives who are elected in open and free elections. I think that you mean "we" and not "they." And, when "we" is used then your argument makes no sense at all.
Our government is not "they" it is "we." "
The decisions are made by our representatives who are elected in open and free elections. I think that you mean "we" and not "they." And, when "we" is used then your argument makes no sense at all.
Our government is not "they" it is "we." "
pagpride wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:48 PM:
" sparkette, I enjoy cooking meth in my private kitchen ,doesn't hurt anybody else. "
ponders wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:29 AM:
" pagpride, since one is not to misrepresent themselves on this blog, you might expect a visit. Bad argument by the way, cooking meth is illegal anywhere. "
OFJohn wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:41 PM:
" Sorry to misunderstand you sparkette, but the old "slippery slope" argument is often, and seriously, used and is never worth it's salt in any instance. Each issue needs to be decided on it's own facts and it's own merits. As for the "home vs business" privacy thing, well, there are many, many things regulated in "privately owned' businesses that are not regulated in the home. You can run around naked in your own home, but not at a "private" restaurant. It's called "PUBLIC Indecency". We could list a tremendous amount of regulations that are enforced on "private" businesses because they deal with the health and welfare of the "Public" that these "private" businesses serve. Health Inspectors, OSHA, Fire Marshalls, Building Inspectors, etc, would not exist if there were no difference between how homes and businesses were treated. Again, HUGE difference between private homes and "private" business. So feel free to run around your house in all your glory, but please don't do it where I'm dining. Oh, and don't smoke in either place. You could get a nasty burn. "
pagpride wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:37 PM:
" Wasn't really an agrument, just more poking or having fun. I work with the police so I am not too worried about them showing up at my door. Something about random drug tests and such probably gives them a clue that I am nothing to take a look at. I do agree with OFJohn though, he makes a sound argument in my opinion. "
Leo46 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:21 AM:
" Sparkette, the argument about "public" and "private" businesses was settled during the civil rights movement. Would you go back to the days when restaurants would not serve "colored" people? Segregationists used all of the arguments I've seen here the last few days about "private" buisnesses and government regulations. It didn't work then and they won't work now. "
Kris wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:25 PM:
" Thats funny, as an overweight american, the last time I checked, I didnt kill anyone. You can smoke anywhere you damn please, just not where I am. "
OFJohn wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:27 PM:
" Right on Chris!
I would do well to lay off the fries myself. But even with me being the unhealthy and messy eater that I am, no one has yet to injest any of the second-hand lard from my happy meal. Also, just to insure the safety of others, I leave nary a crumb which someone could consume were they to accidently lick the wrapper of my double with cheese. "
I would do well to lay off the fries myself. But even with me being the unhealthy and messy eater that I am, no one has yet to injest any of the second-hand lard from my happy meal. Also, just to insure the safety of others, I leave nary a crumb which someone could consume were they to accidently lick the wrapper of my double with cheese. "
kris wrote on Mar 28, 2008 10:19 PM:
" Of John, you are too funny! Lovin it (remember the slogan from McD's from years ago?) Ooops, guess we are showing our age as well as our waistlines!! "
kris wrote on Mar 28, 2008 10:24 PM:
" I know this wont make it to the board, but I need to say it anyway.....If I have to leave the restaurant because I dont like the smoke, then you leave when you dont want to look at my fat behind!!! "
ponders wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:21 AM:
" cute kris! But then noone is suggesting banning your behind from the restaurant. How come nobody has mentioned that public swimming pools don't have designated peeing sections? "
pagpride wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:04 PM:
" Oh, I thought we had banned peeing in a public swimming pool completely. Silly me! "
jtjbr wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:00 AM:
" You people are missing the piont.If you non smokers don't want to be in the bar I own that I alow smokers to congregate in stay out. But DO NOT ! tell me how to run my business. You want to own your own bubiness and make all the decisions ? Fine go buy one and have at it.But unless you want to buy me out as far as I am concerned you have no say as to the day to day operations of my business.When i went into business it was to be my own boss not to have 3 or 4 million bosses.If you dont like the way I run my susiness go elsewhere.Its your right.But it is not your right to tell me how to run my business. "
Get Real wrote on Mar 30, 2008 7:57 AM:
" As far as the Southtown being remodeled, unless they tore out the walls, cigarettes seep into anything, which again shows how toxic it is. It is stale smoke I smell, unless it was gutted it is lingering in the walls, woodwork etc, but it's highly tolerable if the food and service is good, just making the point that the stuff is deadly. "
jtjbr wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:23 AM:
" Where does the number of 400 people dieing from second hand smoke every year come from?How is it documented?Who documents it?Who decides if a person dies from second hand smoke?And is that what is listed on the death certificate? Is it death due to second hand smoke !Is every death due to a respitatory problem considered a death due to second hand smoke if the person was not a smoker? If not why not?Any poll can be made to come out the way the polster wants.Just curious how this is documented?And who keeps track of it? "
kris wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:53 AM:
" So go ahead and list the restaurants that you dont want me to patronize, I am sure myself and others will be glad to stay away. I do agree that the government needs to keep their damn noses out of everything. I am so tired of working my butt off, doing overtime so others can just squander my money I have to pay in. We arent even considered upper class and pay more taxes than the rich do. I am sick to death of paying taxes. "
OFJohn wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:22 PM:
" hey jtbr,
I am for the non-smoking bill, but I do agree with keeping a perspective about too much government invasion. I like the Florida law. It states (or at least it did when implemented) that smoking was not allowed in any bar/restaurant that did over 50% of its business in food sales. That way establishments that were mainly just bars could have smoking. Seemed like a pretty fair and common sense compromise to me. "
I am for the non-smoking bill, but I do agree with keeping a perspective about too much government invasion. I like the Florida law. It states (or at least it did when implemented) that smoking was not allowed in any bar/restaurant that did over 50% of its business in food sales. That way establishments that were mainly just bars could have smoking. Seemed like a pretty fair and common sense compromise to me. "
jtjbr wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:02 AM:
" OFJohn compromise can be a good thing.Sometimes in life we have to give a little to get a little.Its when things get all one sided that I have to bristle up.I really think before our elected officials get hasty they should do some research on the subject.There are alot of states with controles on smoking of one sort or another.We should contact these states and see what is working and what isnt.A partial ban that did not cost us hundreds of millions in tax revinue or put private business at risk of bankrupsy would be a good thing.And contrary to some beliefs the smoking ban in Illinois and Minnesota has hurt the bar business terrably.Business in some areas is down as mush as 50%.Now I dont know where any of you people work but if the companys business gets cut in half I bet people will be out of work over it.Some say the business will come back.Any garentees? NO !If the business does come back how long will it take? How long could the company you work for survive on 50% of their revinue before they go broke?Or even a 25% loss.Not long.People will go out to eat with their family and not smoke witch works for resturants that way when smokers are done eating they get up and leave rather than socializing.And that opens the tables up for new customers.But bars are a different cat thats where smoking people go to socialize and have some drinks. And if they can't enjoy themselves thay will stay home.There can be smoking bars as well as non smoking bars so everyone has an option.Or as i look at it CHOISES. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
Leo46 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:19 AM:
Most restaurants are afraid to prohibit smoking because they are afraid of losing customers. The exceptions (that I know of) are fast food, Village Inn, Texas Road House, and South Town. The last three are doing a booming business since going nonsmoking. The rest of the local restaurants would also see an increase in business if they dared to followed suit. However, if a law can be passed by the state to force them to go nonsmoking, they can blame the state and still see in increase. Win win for the restaurants.
"