Arnold to "Terminate" smoking bans
Published February 18, 2004
 |
California has one of the toughest workplace smoking policies in the world. The dracnonian laws prohibit smoking in most any public building. Even "cigar bars" can't allow smoking anymore. But Arnold Schwarzenegger has plans to reduce these restrictsions. Sort of. |
According to the Washington Times
California law strictly bans smoking in offices, bars and restaurants, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a longtime cigar smoker has proposed converting the state Capitol's interior courtyard into a "smoking plaza."
Under the actor-turned-governor's plan, part of the Capitol's roof would be removed to create an area where legislators and other Sacramento visitors could smoke.
The governor's spokeswoman, Terri Carbaugh, explained that Mr. Schwarzenegger wants to create an informal meeting and schmoozing area where he can smoke cigars with lawmakers and other power brokers.
I think this is a good first step to bringing freedom back into the lives of Californians. It sounds like a good idea, both sides should be able to live with. Smokers would have a centralized place to smoke, and the non-smokers still have the rest of the building which is smoke free.
But not good enough say many anti-freedom smoking groups:
"That's very frightening that would even think about smoking inside the heart of our state Capitol," said Jim Walker, the director and founder of Stop Tobacco Abuse of Minors Pronto. "He could do more good by championing our cause rather than trivializing it."
Last Saturday in Sacramento, several dozen protesters demonstrated in front of the Capitol to denounce Mr. Schwarzenegger's project to turn the Capitol courtyard into a smoking patio.
"We are deeply disappointed at several recent public depictions of your use and promotion of cigars and urge you to refrain from modeling this dangerous habit," the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the American Lung Association wrote in a recent letter to Mr. Schwarzenegger.
This hits on two central arguments that I always harp on.
1. It's your body. If you want to smoke, it's your right. The argument that it costs society too much in health care is a scary thought to progress. Alcohol, fattening foods, and lack of exercise all end lives prematurely. Should we go after those now?
2. If a business owner wants to have an establishment where smokers can gather and enjoy a smoke, its HIS right. He owns the business, he pays taxes on the building, and profits. He has as much as a right to have an establishment which is smoking as a bar or restaurant owner has the right to have a smoke-free establishment.
Freedom comes with risks and responsibilities. When are we going to allow adults to be adults and stop letting big government nannies tell us what to do.
I say smoke away.
For more fine reading, visit Tom's Nap Room
- Arnold to "Terminate" smoking bans
- Published: February 18, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Tom Bux
- Tom Bux's BC Writer page
- Tom Bux's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Well, believe it or not, I am actually more libertarian. I think that flag burning amendments are bad bad bad.
Though I would be infuriated by a scum burning the flag, it is his right. People like Bob Barr want to ban flag burning becasue they think it's too disturbing, but if we limit "disturbing" speech what is next?
It's a slippery slope as I like to call everything
I think this is a good first step to bringing freedom back into the lives of Californians.
Please reword this so it says "bringing freedom back to smokers and bringing the oppressions of smoke back into the lives of people who have no interest in having their lungs filled with someone else's smoke."
I love it how laws that benefit the health of an overwhelming majority of people are "draconian" but laws that help a small minority of people destroy themselves are fair. Love it, just LOVE it. If you want to smoke, feel free to do so - at your home. There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for smoking to be allowed anywhere else. None.
It's your body. If you want to smoke, it's your right.
Sure, as long as you don't exhale.
How can you not call rules which blanket every public building without taking into account free market economics and the will of business owners draconian.
Listen: I will write this so a 3rd grader will understand.
If you own a place and you want to allow people to smoke, (which should be your your right as a business owner) people who want to smoke will go there.
If you own a place and you want it to be smoke free than people who want THAT will go there.
Free markets will decide.
Not the government, not you for me, but me, as a business owner.
so you, as a business owner have the right to endanger your workers?
and your snotty "i will write this so a 3rd grader will understand it" stance is oh so telling.
I write it snotty "so a third grader could understand it" because you obviously have trouble understanding the crux of the argument.
Free Markets decide. If they don't want work for a place that allows smoking, they can work at the non-smoking place. I own the business. I pay the bills, pay their salary, and all of our livlihood depends on giving what the custoemer wants.
But I guess free market haters can't let the markets decide. Big government knows better.
I have an idea, and it's not too far fetched. Since fat is bad for you every food served at a reastaurant MUST ONLY SERVE LOW FAT FOOD. That way the customers are protected, the workes who probably eat there everyday are protected, and everyone's happy.
That means rice and sprouts. It's proecting the health of everyone afterall.
why yessir, captain condescending.
freemarkets break down where worker safety is concerned.
maybe we should go back to slave labor.
i understand the crux of your argument, i just don't agree with it.
Up until a few years ago, the free market did decide where people could smoke, and I couldn't go see live music without having to wallow in cigarette smoke and shower and change clothes after I got home. Personally, I didn't care for that free market solution, nor did a good number of other people. Just as many people didn't care for the free market solutions to slavery, child labor, working conditions, drunk driving and child pornography.
Say Tom, you're in Pennsylvania right? How about you vote on the rules in your own state, and let the free market decide where people prefer to live. California's rules are for Californians, not you for them, to decide.
Fine, I will stay at home, smoke there, not go out to eat, and laugh when some poor shlup get laid off because of slow business at the restaurant where he works.
Sounds good to me.
another area where the "free" market fails on this issue is travel.
if i end up at my destination, or maybe someplace in between (say i'm heading out to the southeastern us. and i have to stop in rural ohio for the night).
if i can't find a smoke-free environment my choices are:
a. skip eating
b. eat in a smokey restaurant and then the next day endure a massive sinus headache plus fun-filled bloody ick when i blow my nose.
this really isn't just a matter of finding smoke 'distasteful'.
heck, i kinda like the smell of cigar smoke but it unfortunately has the exact same effect on me.
Burning a flag doesn't hurt a soul. Secondhand smoke kills.
Regulating it only makes sense. We insist that bars and private clubs (which really are businesses; they operate bars, sell goods and services, etc.) not sell liquor to minors for health and safety reasons, and reasonable people agree that this is a good thing. The same thing should be true of laws that prevent them from poisoning patrons and employees.
Screw tobacco. Legalize hemp. Then I'll roll me a doobie in the American flag rolling papers gonzo has for sale and I'll light it with a piece of wood that is claimed to be a relic of Noah's Ark.
i feel there are hazards inherent in several jobs. foundries, paint booths. chemical plants and others.if you have a problem with working in these types of industries,dont! you cant expect management to remove all hazards and put them out of business. places that serve alcohol arnt exactly good places to hang out anyway
I really cannot fathom banning smoking in bars. That's almost like banning screwing in a whorehouse. Bars aren't supposed to represent health and fitness. They're places where you indulge in vices: booze, tobacco, idle chatter, sex, gambling.
I' cannot understand why non-smokers gripe so much. I live in Columbia, South Carolina, the tobacco capitol, and damn if I can find more than a couple of places downtown where you can smoke at lunch. The vast majority of eating establishments in my neck of the woods are all non-smoking, so far as I can tell.
Please, please, PLEASE, somebody, prove me wrong!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/12890)
tom , this isn't really related to smoking...but i've always wondered what conservatives think about things like laws/amendmendments prohibiting flag burning.
does such a thing fall under the realm of the 'nanny state'?