Smoking Ban: Even This Debate Shall Pass

Some of the rhetoric from the bar owner's wasa bit thin, true. Of course, some of them are scared of losing their businesses or suffering a drastic cut in their income. Because of that I can excuse them. They have more at stake than smelly clothes.

I don't see that they were not willing to negotiate. They were never given a chance to negotiate at all.

Some of the rhetoric from the bar owner's wasa bit thin, true. Of course, some of them are scared of losing their businesses or suffering a drastic cut in their income. Because of that I can excuse them. They have more at stake than smelly clothes.

I don't see that they were not willing to negotiate. They were never given a chance to negotiate at all.

"I wish the city had gone back to the bar owner's and worked out a better compromise rather than succumbing to the "High Banners"..."

Well, the rhetoric coming from the bar owners before and since made it clear that they had no interest in ever supporting a non-smoking clientele. I don't blame the city for not trying too hard there. There would have been zero interest in a high tax to stay open as a smoking establishment, which is the only way I could see to get a non-trivial number of both types around.

Excellent commnets on your blog. Very well thought out and expressed.

I wish the city had gone back to the bar owner's and worked out a better compromise rather than succumbing to the "High Banners". Alas, they did not.

I blogged about this a while back:

http://mdahmus.thebaba.com/blog/archives/000191.html

Additionally, the represhensible behavior of the pro-smoking bars makes me want to root for them to go out of business anyways - pushing misleading crap like the supposed hundreds of non-smoking bars (pre-ban), for instance.

I have no intention of trolling. I was trying to make a point. I appreciate the well thought comments above. But I must say this is primarily an emotional issue. The Judge was right when he said the ordinance was written by zealots. There is absolutely no room for compromise. It strikes me as unreasonable to label an entrepreneur who opens a club for cigar afficinados (who love cigars as much as some people appreciate beer or wine), as a criminal. That's not reasonable. There's no option for bar owner's to install ventilation systems or even separate smoking rooms. That's zealotry. That's not freedom, and it's not supportive of business.

I disagree that the intention is not to force smokers to quit smoking altogether. Why else would CA ban smoking in outdoor smoking patio's? Why else would Berkley ban smoking on public sidewaks and parks? (With a curious exemption for the homeless.) There have been proposals to ban smoking in cars. There are people who want to take smoker's children away.

I was in an Austin bar recently. First off, I had to wait to get my order because the bartender had gone outside to smoke a cigarette. The owner had desperately built an outside smoking area. I watched while the majority of the patrons came inside only to get another beer then go back outside. I chatted with the bartender. I asked if they had received many compliments on the new clean air (which smelled of alcohol and cleaning agents, BTW.) The bartender said no, in fact there had been many complaints. The owner did not want to build a better outdoor smoking deck because he expected smoking to be banned out there, too. The bartender said to come back after midnight, when everyone smoked inside. Said they are doing that all over town. Said that yes, sometimes the smoking had bothered him but would still rather allow smoking because made more money. Said that if the election was done again, the smokers would win. They didn't vote because many of them are slackers, according to that bartender. It was ridiculous. Clearly the majority of that bar's patrons smoked and the owner had in effect been told do not cater to that sort of people anymore. This was a dive bar. They are not all of a sudden going to get people rushing in there from Tarrytown. That to me is unjust and unfair.

Any law which violates the mores of a large segment of the society is an unrealistic law and will only breed contempt for the law. We're seeing contempt for that law in bars all over Austin.

The "Big Brother" aspect of the ordinance bothers me, too. You can make an anonymous phone call and turn a bar for a violation. There's no such anonymous line for the intoxicated, though. How can a bar defend itself from false accusations? What's the due process? I looked up the smoking comments on Craigslist. One guy asked what number to call to report violators and was berated for being a snitch. That's the atmosphere we're breeding in bars now.

Another thing that bothers me is that the bar owner's had already meet with the city and hammered out a compromise. That was democracy at it's best. But the city, under the paid influence of outsiders, betrayed that compromise. The smoking wasn't a huge issue until an outside group came in, and paid to make it a huge issue. Those people are gone now with a nice victory on their resumes, off to another city to do it again. I don't think they cared a whit for the music scene and the viability of local businesses. My guess is Austin was picked because it voted for Kerry, and since the anti-smoking ban movement comes form the Left, they figured Austin was ripe.

I've talked to the people who voted for the ordinance. Either they don't go to bars at all, or they didn't like smoke, or they didn't like to smell bad. I ask did you attend the non-smoking shows? No. Did you patronize the music venues that were already non-smoking? No, never bothered to find out about those. Did you complan to the bar about smoking going on? No. They entered the bar despite the prominent Smoking Allowed sign. But yet, once an outsider comes in and stirs up a controversy, all of a sudden it was a huge issue and they can not tolerate a whiff of smoke in a bar.

I consider this all academic regardless, because the die has been cast. Keep Austin Free has apparently given up, or if not, their efforts are more than likely futile. But I think Austin has been hurt by this. We're headed for a PC Music experience in bars. The more we make Austin like Disneyland, the less creativity there will be.

TC: Your comments aren't too long and your willingness to at least rexamine your position is as refreshing as it is exceedingly rare. I suspect that in your research you will come across a fair amount of information that disputes both of our positions. I can easily determine that the tobacco companies, bar's and resturants, have (or at least think they have) a financial stake in the continued prevelance of smoking in our society. As a result you would imagine that they would fund a number of "think tanks" and researchers to "discover" their version of the truth to promote their economic interests. I'm not saying that anyone of these parties has or will (which i wouldnt know of), but that there is an economic impetus to do so. Are there competing interests on the other side of the equation that i can't think of? I'd imagine there is a fair amount of money to be made in nicotine patches and gum (too short term to matter?), or perhaps substitutes (alcohol or other recreational drugs). I dont really know. My point is that most of these studies rely on funding from parties with vested economic interests (both ways i'd assume). The rare exceptions will be funded by the National Science Foundation or perhaps an ocassional McArthur genius award. It will take a real endeavor to find the cunning ways in which each published study might not have addressed the real problem domain. That is primarily why we are encouraged to rely on the best objective sources for this type of information and farm out the task of sleuthing to some poor soul at the dept of HHS. Use their meta information about where they think the studies failed and determine if you agree with those grounds.

hc: I believe you had the right to be protected against any known, and any reasonably known dangers while working. The question here is one of cause and effect, and the degree to which some potential cause produces said effect. Probability says that your run-ins with colds and infections while tending bar were caused by viruses and infectious agents (staph bacteria, more than likely) which were probably brought to you by your patrons’ hands/money/mouths-on-glasses/etc. The potential for second hand smoke to increase your susceptibility to viruses and infections (maybe it causes a drop in one’s overall immune response? I don’t currently know.) is something worth considering, but it is NOT the cause of colds or infections. That should need no proving.

As for my lack of faith that it absolutely does cause cancer? Well, I’m a skeptic. I believe that direct chemical-laden air inhalation (the vehicle of delivery matters not: cigarettes, car exhaust, industry ventilation, evaporating pool water, whatever) over a period of time which exceeds an individual body’s ability to properly metabolize it, will result in some variety of disease(s) and/or maladies. Cancer? Maybe. Excessive blood clotting? Perhaps. Tumor? It’s in the realm. And given the proper dosage, it could be immediately fatal. Based on that, I assume that there is an almost infinite spectrum of possibilities which could potentially be placed on a dosage-to-time-exposure matrix. One end is fully metabolized and harmless while the other is immediate death. Second hand smoke MUST fall somewhere in between.

So, to me, the question is not whether the ingestion of carcinogens can cause cancer (I have no doubts that it can, but does not always). The question is whether or not second hand smoke, even though it contains carcinogens, poses a significant enough health risk in BARS or MUSIC VENUES (not bedrooms, Souper Salads, Grandma’s car, or a daycare center) for nonsmoking adults, given the dosage. THAT is the issue.

Once I get my mind around that, I can knock out other possibilities such as filter systems, fresh air requirements, or limited banning for those establishments which are under a certain square footage (calculated based on reliable science and measures). If all other avenues are exhausted as possibilities, THEN you ban it for everyone. THEN you take away rights. But you take them away 1) for the greater good and 2) because there WAS NO BETTER OPTION.

Fuck it. My comments are just. too. damn. long. Anything else will have to wait for a future post.

I used to bartend and wait tables. I hated the secondhand smoke - I smelled like an ashtray when I went home at night, and it gave me frequent colds and sinus infections. Yes, I could have worked somewhere else, but I was in college, and I probably couldn't have found anything else that would have given me the same money and a schedule that was compatible with my class schedule.

I believe I had a right to a smoke-free environment, just like coal miners have the right to certain environmental protections to protect them from black lung disease. Maybe secondhand smoke isn't as serious as black lung disease, and maybe bartending isn't as dangerous as coal mining. But I believe it's a valid analogy. I think the government should pass laws that protect employees' health, within reason. If you're working on an oil rig or a coal mine, yes, there are certain risks that go with the job. But if reasonable protections can be made against those risks, they should be. I don't think it's unreasonable to ban smoking indoors. This is Austin, for god's sake. It doesn't even get that cold outside.

There's also the old adage about "my right to swing my first ends at your nose." Drink all you want, smoke all you want in your own home or outdoors, just don't drink and drive and don't smoke in my workplace.

Spyglass, I don't think the government has a grand plan to ban smoking everywhere in the country, and I don't think that banning overeating and drinking is their next step. Your overeating does not bother me, nor does your drinking, unless you then get in a car and run down innocent bystanders. Nobody's taking away your silverware.

Truecraig, you seem like an intelligent guy. I'm surprised you don't believe that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, when it's been accepted by so many medical professionals and organizations (many noted in MF's post). I know that I feel like shit after inhaling secondhand smoke all night and that's enough for me. I love the smoking ban and I go out more often than I used to, now that I can breathe freely while I enjoy a drink with my friends.

mf, No worries on the typos or potential run-ons. I believe you made yourself and your position understood.

I certainly do not take issue with the idea that there is a balance that must be met when considering the absolute rights of individuals within any population and the overall (healthy) survival of the population itself. But there remains a question as to the validity of the claim that second hand smoke is indeed a notable culprit in the death or decrease in general health of nonsmokers. This, as we have both noted, is the real crux of the problem (if we both agreed on ETS being a risk factor for lung cancer amongst nonsmoking-adult-BAR PATRONS, mf, then we would have no debate). Without that evidence, the ban has no basis or foundation for protecting innocent nonsmokers (save for their dry cleaning bills, which is not an issue of public health but more of convenience). However, I am open to the idea that there is, potentially, some information out there, held asymmetrically, that could be analyzed to shed better light on this discussion. I have researched this before, out of my own curiosity, and found nothing compelling. But I am suddenly inspired by your comments. I intend to look deeper into this issue and write up something more journalistic in design. I plan to actually dig through the data and methods used by various organizations (including those you noted) to prove/disprove the effects of second hand smoke. I hope that it will be done shortly, but I do not want to rush any research.

My curiosity’s pitch is fevered.

I am no moral absolutist. "WE" includes you. "WE" are the society you have chosen to be a member and participant of. Together (over time) "WE" decide our collective fate as determined by the best method we've discovered (democratic republic or in this case straight democratic referendum). As a nonreligious person i believe that we are the the grantors and guarantors of any and all rights bestowed to us by each other (basic social contract). Now, there are varying degrees of undue influence in the actual implementation of our governance mechanisms that provie that but they are an issue for another topic and probably shouldnt be involved in this reply.

It is impossible to secure most of these collective rights of a society without somehow limiting the personal freedoms of the individual. If we preserve ones right to life then we can't very well also preserve ones right to kill or even to run around with fissal waste.

It is our societies duty to find an acceptable balance between the number of rights and the nature of the respective restrictions that must be enforced to ensure them. Because the CDC, American heart association, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, and US EPA among others have all taken the position that ETS (aka second hand smoke) is a known risk factor for lung cancer i believe that the curtailment of ones ability to impose such a burden on others is justified. Now there are a host of other things that individuals do that probably cause a myriad of other adverse health affects and the validity/permissability of those activities (in their current form) might need addressing as well. If we disagree that ETS is a risk factor for lung cancer than we dont have much of a common ground to debate from but i believe that the empirical evidence is substantial enough to justify at least a cautionary stance. Sorry for typos, runons of incompletes i have to go pick someone up and dont have time to revise theis post before leaving.

Oh and spyglass your comments on my position seem like a troll instead of a discussion so i dont particularly think they deserve a response. My explication of the rights vs restrictions was not exhaustive because i assumed that the reader could realize the point i was conveying.

Spyglass, while I agree that the ban does not effectively protect the health of anyone, I am not so sure that it is part a much larger effort to altogether squash smoking either. I am leaning toward the opinion that certain groups (American Lung Association, particularly), which have the best of intentions, look for whatever variety of support they can get. Here, and in many other cities, the majority of the support they find is from nonsmokers who do not necessarily care about healthy lungs but who hate smelling like smoke. Or militant anti-smokers who would simply prefer smoking be outlawed due to their own ongoing battle with cigarettes since retiring their own habit. As the “mission” solidifies between these disparate groups, it becomes more passionate than logical, then suddenly the public is hearing a whole slew of “WE allow XXX, but not XXX, for YOUR own good,” with the backing of legislation. Which to me, is beyond dangerous. This ban is CERTAINLY no Prohibition in terms of depth and level of requirement, but the makings of it have the same profile.

MF, I am assuming that your questions are directed at me. If not, then ignore my response. Side note: There were smokeless cigarettes: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9606/03/cigarette/ I have no idea whether they are still on the market because nobody cared about them. This is not personal MF, as I, myself am guilty of poor phrasing, but be VERY careful with the whole “WE allow YOU to XXX” phrasing. It’s too polarizing. The collective “WE” you refer to sounds like some sort of Board of Acceptable Behaviors and Morals (of which you are magically a member of?) that lords over the rest of our unbathed bodies as we desperately search out ways to make life miserable for each other, which you will be further burdened to curtail. This issue is not well enough understood to allow for polarization like that yet. I have yet to see truly conclusive data either way. Your argument rests solely on the assumption that second hand smoke is a known and proven danger (asymmetrically unavailable information, only in the hands of… You and the American Lung Association, I suppose?) and that the government has a responsibility to protect the innocent based on that. If you have it, then make the information symmetrically available so the population can make an informed decision on how they should legislate their own rights. It’s only fair.

To be clear: I am NOT saying that there is NO link between second hand smoke and cancer. There very well could be. But I am saying that I haven’t even seen anecdotal evidence pointing that direction. Just speculation. And until there is, I believe it unwise to back and push any legislation that is willing to assume the science.

Yep. It's a complicated subject. My comment(s) will have to be broken into pieces in order to post. I tend to get wordy (or so I'm told).

This post was not meant to attack the ban itself. The fact is: it passed by referendum. The population got the chance to decide this in the most democratic way possible (however, populations DO make mistakes when given this power) and it was decided by majority (regardless of how slim) that it should be enacted and then enforced. So my intention was not to stir the debate any more than it is already being stirred, but to show that I believe the debate will pass. Eventually, a real conclusion will be made and put into (or removed from) law which everyone will agree on.

But we obviously aren’t there yet. And since your comments were so good, I feel compelled to reply.

pylorns, I think many people agree with your logic, and I certainly lean that way. But, this logic only holds if second-hand smoke does NO real damage to anyone in breathing range. In my opinion, the evidence either way is hardly conclusive, since it is extremely difficult to form controls or do proper attribution/contribution analysis to get definitive results. Lung cancer can potentially come from many different sources, some with fairly strong empirical evidence (asbestos inhalation), and some without (second hand cigarette smoke). So should the government propose “better safe than sorry” regulations based on spotty evidence, which will lead to further curbing of individual rights? Would not be the first time it has happened, but does that make it correct? This relates to my mf comments below.

Why can't it be an establishment's choice, and the choice of the employee to work in a smoking or non-smoking environment? You don't make equal money, maybe, but someone working "the most dangerous job" on one of those crab fishing boats can't complain they want equal pay but don't want to deal with the risky part so they should get to only do the safe part, like maybe be captain.

Actually, we do not allow people to drink and not drive. Becoming intoxicated in a public place to the point where you can not drive is a crime, whether you intend to drive or not. See the TABC website. The TABC is cracking down on that heavily, with numerous arrests in Austin. It's another public health issue, like the the second hand smoke issue, except that the second hand smoke issue is based on dubious science. I would encourage any anti-smoker to take the next step for their health and quit drinking. Alcohol consumption is right up there with obesity and smoking as the one of the leading causes of death. With your logic the government should certainly begin legal proceedings to eliminate all places where citizens may consume alcohol and overeat, all for greater good. It's all part of the nanny state. Perhaps we should take away knives and forks, because someone could easily stab themselves.

Many bar employees are now defintely going to have to get a new job and find a new bar, since bar revenues are way down. But I guess they will be healthier while they are unemployed.

You can't make the whole world like Disneyland. The day the music scene dies in Austin will be the day it is made into Disneyland. That is on it's way, courtesy of the politically correct Left.

We allow you to drink but not to drink and drive. We allow you to speak but not to yell "fire!" in a theater. In this country we attempt to balance our desire for personal freedoms against the potential to cause REAL harm to others. If you can invent the smokeless cigarette id happily vote for removing the ban but pretending like everyone can just get new jobs is akin to a wholesale dismissal of employment saftey laws (OSHA, etc). Your "get a new job" or "find a new bar" argument assumes a free market which is a much more theoretical than practical entity. In today's economy you deal with information assymetry (aka "adverse selection") and other issues that require social constructs to preserve the rights of the populace at large. Do you disagree with this analogy in general or feel that an individual should be allowed to cause harm to public health at large?

The ban is not all about the health of bar employees or about smelling good or about making bars about less annoying for nonsmokers. If it was there would be plenty of room for compromise. A bar that catered to cigar aficionados would be legal. Clubs would be allowed to install ventilation systems. Clubs could offer smoking and non-smoking shows or hours. The health of the employees issue is just a legal tactic. If their health is such a concern, why not require bar owner's to carry health insurance? Hardly any of those employees have insurance.

There's plenty of room for compromise, but none is allowed because the ordinance is all about forcing smokers to quit by gradually eliminating all places to smoke. The smoking on outdoor patios will be made illegal, too, as was done in California.

I'm a non-smoker, but personally I don't think the government has the right to decide how a business should be run in that aspect.