The smoking-ban movement has certainly gained momentum in Indiana:
In the last 13 months, partial or comprehensive bans on smoking have been approved in Jeffersonville and 14 other Indiana communities.
Most people seem to have accepted the primary argument for such bans, which is that secondhand smoke kills. (I could make an argument the other way, but public sentiment has so overwhelmed science that it would be pointless.) The primary debate these days, which is played out in one way another in all the ban debates, is how much control people should have over their own businesses and how to manage the idea of choice for both smokers and non-smokers.
However one feels about the bans, this is the kind of issue that should play out the way it has been in Indiana, community by community rather than by state edict. A lot of communities are passing bans right now, but no-smoking laws have also failed in a lot of communities. And not all the laws are the same. Fort Wayne restaurants, for example, can allow smoking if there is a completely enclosed section for it. But Indianapolis restaurants (including even bars, which are exempt here) have to choose whether to serve only adults or all people. Those who serve only adults can allow smoking; those who don't can't.
And many of the measures, whether they pass or fail, come down to a one-vote margin. That means any coming measure could go either way. It also means that voters, if they don't like the way it goes, have an identifiable target to go after if they want to change things back or get something changed, as the case may be. It's democracy in all its messy glory.
Comments
I think wholesale smoking bans enforcing smoking bans on private property are wrong in general.
I do think that it is ok for governments to enforce smoking bans on public property if they feel there is a health risk. For example, I can see smoking bans in schools, libraries, government buildings, etc.
I do NOT think it is ok for government to force private business owners to enforce smoking bans they do not want to enforce.
Instead, each business owner should decide his or her smoking policy and post it on the front door. That is what property rights are all about.
We need to get the government out of every aspect of our lives...
Mike Sylvester
Libertarian
That was one of the most interesting comments I have read in a long time Gary Daily.
I truly mean that.
I do not agree with your stance; but, I do respect and enjoy your logic.
I have read The Constitution many times as I am sure you have. I have also read the Federalist papers a couple of times and a lot of supporting documents.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Property Rights were EXTREMELY important to our Founding Fathers.
I do not believe they would approve of any of the "nanny" laws that are being enacted with more and more regularity.
We need to get the government out of a lot of areas it has entered; property rights is certainly one of them.
Mike Sylvester
Fort Wayne Libertarian
Gary, Just out of curiosity, In your quest to control private businesses, where exactly will you draw the line and how will you pay for it?
Right now, you and the rest of the "Nannies" appear to be happy with no smoking inside the building, but I fear once you've accomplished that, you're group will be in need of another cause to ensure the health and welfare of the rest of us. (Which we sincerely appreciate, as we can't manage without your help)
Will it be permissable to smoke outside the building? If so, within how many feet? You know that will become an issue. It'll be ok for a while, but sooner or later you won't like having to walk past the smoke. So we're going to have to look at some court battles there. Probably going to need a cigarette cop on duty. Guess that'll cost a little too....
Or will we need to smoke in the parking lot? Non smokers will park there too, so that may not work either, unless you make us smoke inside the car with the windows up. Going to need a cigarette cop out there too...Guess that's going to cost a little too....
Will it be up to the business owner to pay for enforcement (and raise his prices) or will you raise everyones taxes to pay for the smoke police? Of course with enforcement comes prosecutors, judges, and court time. Guess that'll cost a little more too.
Will you have a schedule of fines for violators, or would jail time be more effective? Guess that'll cost a little more too.
You folks love "rehabilitation" too, don't you? That should always accompany any enforcement policy. Guess that'll cost a little more too.
Be careful what you wish for, this could cost you a fortune...But hey, it's for the greater good right?
Tim:
You sound a little more Libertarian everyday...
Mike Sylvester
Second Hand Smoke only effect people with impaired immmmune systems. No credible study on second hand smoke has been conducted since 1953 using rats in a controlled enviroment which reflected no effect to their health as a result. Some of these same mice were used in a later test on nuclear fallout and had a significantly better survival rate than mice who had not been exposed to second hand smoke. Studies since then have been studies of studies of studies of studies based on the memories of elderly cancer patients of their lives with smoking forty years in the past. All of these studies covered periods before the Clean Air Act of 1972 which has increased average visability from feet to miles outside.
Smoking Bans have had no effect on Health Care costs in California or New York States. But the medical profession continues to create more and more people with impaired immune systems from transplants to cancer patients. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has also resulted in more people with impaired immune systems.
I smoke rather than take prescribed drugs for ADD, cigarettes are still cheaper than drugs to treat this problem.
As the population continues to live and work in controlled enviroments their immune systems become impaired or lazy. These controlled enviroments are the cause of most asthma sufferers problems because they also seal in moisture and foster the growth of molds.
Smoking will never be eradicated, tobacco is a weed and easily grown. Smoking Bans and high tobacco taxes are creating a subculture or under the counter economy making normal law abiding citizens crimminals in the minds of others.
It was recently reported that after a year of their smoking ban the consumption of tobacco in Ireland increased.
Limiting smoking only makes it more attractive to youth as they spead their wings looking for things that will upset adults.
In the end, what has been the results of similiar policies in the past and present?
Has illegal drug use been abolished. Did prohibition solve any problems for the benefit of the general welfare? Has anyone lived forever yet? How far are we from burning people at the stake?