Friday, June 01, 2007

One nagging thought in the back of my mind....

A large part of the justification for the county smoking ban in restaurants is that children accompaning their parents cannot freely choose to not eat in that restaurant. (Note that this doesn't really apply to the city ban in bars, unless one is concerned about minors with fake ID's being exposed to secondhand smoke.)

How long before someone decides that the worst threat to kids is parents who smoke? Some city in California will probably be the first to use secondhand smoke as an excuse to take kids away from their parents. The nanny state will soon become the legal guardian state.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm carrying 40 extra pounds. That is a much greater disservice to my kids than smoking. In fact, for their sake, I should probably smoke instead of stuff food in my face. What people don't understand is that they're next. Eventually, the Doc Crawford's of the world will get to your vice and you will have paved the way for them.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Well said anonymous...

There is a growing number of policitians (Democrats and Republicans) who seem to think they know what is best for each one of us.

Mike Sylvester

Jennifer Jeffrey said...

If people were that concerned about stopping smoking, they would help people stop smoking--NOT send them home to smoke and drink in front of their kids.

steve pepple said...

This is such a myopic issue. To get all maudlin and talk about freedom and eroding rights is silly. If you want to discuss rights and freedom consider something important-- America's military and economic involvement in the rest of the world. It's such an insulated, comfortable belief that the government of Fort Wayne has any thing to do with your broader liberties. It's just as absurd as Kelty speaking about abortion and so forth.

Anonymous said...

You completely missed the point. Good try, though.

Jeff Pruitt said...

The slippery slope argument is a poor one...

Bartleby said...

Mr. Enders,

I note that your question has gone unanswered, other than by the suggestion that it's somehow improper.

There is, of course, no reason in principle why the arguments/reasons/excuses for the smoking bans in privately-owned "public" places should not extend to the smokers' homes as well. Even apart from the children, a "private" home may at any time become a Workplace for cops, firemen, home-care nurses, cable guys, plumbers, IRS auditors, etc. Aren't these Workers entitled to the same Smoke-Free Workplace as the rest of us? And besides all that, the propriety of the government's exercising authority over what substances the peasants such as you and I may be permitted to ingest, inhale, or inject has surely been thoroughly established by now. Any tendency on the part of our supervisors to "pick their fights" is purely a matter of prudence and practicality -- certainly not principle.

To address your question: I suspect it will be a good while before the extension of smoke control into smokers' homes is made. Our supervisors are much more clever than the despots of old, who were frequently overthrown by their peasants. Ours have perfected the principle of gradualism, by which frogs may be boiled to death without the fuss and bother of having to keep chasing them down and throwing them back into the kettle. True, it takes a while. But as my old Dad used to say, "Everything comes to the man who can wait."

Parson said...

If your home ever becomes a workplace for firemen, you probably have bigger smoking issue then "2nd hand smoke".

I do see your point, they already tried to keep us from drinking at home and that didn't work out so well. I think big tobacco still has enough fat cat politicans in their pockets to keep tobacco legal for a long time though.

Anonymous said...

I would have had respect for Crawford had he begun a national campaign to outlaw tobacco period. That position has some legitimacy. Telling a business that they cannot allow a legal activity that has always been allowed and is still allowed in the vast majority of the country and the world, makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

"If people were that concerned about stopping smoking, they would help people stop smoking--NOT send them home to smoke and drink in front of their kids."

This post came from Jennifer. I'd like to comment on it. It is the job of elected officials to make our city safe and healthy for ALL who live in it. Keeping smoking out of public places is one of the best things I think they've done. Smokers constantly complain about their "right" to smoke being taken away. However, they forget about everyone else's RIGHT to breathe clean air! Smoking is not a "right" it's a privilege. And one that I choose not to have blown in my face. If people choose to smoke and drink in front of their kids because they cannot have a cigarette/cigar at their local tavern, then they have more things to worry about. Perhaps they have a problem and should seek help. No government will take away anyone's 'privilege' to smoke at home, I think people are getting a bit paranoid....

Anonymous said...

40 lbs overweight guy:

No, your extra 40 pounds affects YOU, and only YOU. Smoking affects everyone AROUND you. Ps. I hear if you sign up for Nutrisystem right now, they will send two weeks of extra breakfasts, lunches, dinners and desserts for free!

Robert Enders said...

Anonymous 8:45pm
All bars exist for one purpose: so that customers can kill their brain cells and damage their liver while enjoying the company of people who are doing the same. Some patronize bars for the purpose of finding a person who is willing to exchange phone numbers and/or bodily fluids, and risk contracting a venereal disease. I understand that you prefer to enjoy your vices in a smoke free enviroment. But other people like to drink and socialize while surrounded by a gray toxic cloud. That is why there needs to be smoking and non-smoking bars. That way people can destroy their hearing while sitting to close to loud speakers in a smoke-free bar.

I am a teetotaling non-smoker in a monagamous relationship. But I support your right to self destruct in the manner in which you see fit without the interference of anyone else.

Anonymous said...

It is disturbing that many non-smokers are out only for their immediate self-interest and completely fail to see the overarching liberty concerns, specifically, that a bunch of guys who meet every Tuesday night can take your business away from you.

Also, with respect to the "now I'll go to bars" argument. Neighborhood bars don't exist because of the one or two times a year that you will now drink there. They exist on the backs of 6 to 8 people who are there seven days a week. If these people smoke, the bar has to be smoking. You cannot alienate your base.

Robert Enders said...

Anon 9:34
All these anti-smoking activists made a big show of going to bars on June 1st. The true test will be if they still go to bars a year from now.

Tim Zank said...

Anon 9:34...You are EXACTLY right. I have pointed out numerous times, the places that will see revenue dry up aren't the ones that get "surveyed". Places like the Office, the Senate, Syls' Hideaway, Hook & Ladder, Green Frog, Deer Park, Clinton Street Bar & grill, Fosters, Shady Nook, the list goes on and on.

The newspapers & tv cameras will be interviewing ecstatic "smoke free club hoppers" outside of Pierres using mom and dads credit cards to finance their weekend ass-chasing.

The ones you WON'T here about are the thousands that work for a living & don't offend their tavern mates in any way shape or form by smoking.

What a victory indeed.

Parson said...

"That is why there needs to be smoking and non-smoking bars."

Why didn't anyone ever try to open a non-smoking bar before the ban?

Jeff Pruitt said...

There were a few non-smoking bars

Catablu
Crazy Pins

I'm sure there were others...