A Perspective on the Smoking Ban

[Novine]

"Just trying to get him to admit that somebody's freedom of choice of how to run their private business is being infringed upon, whether we agree with the decision or not."

I'll agree to that as long as you can agree that the freedom of everyone else's right to be free of toxic smoke in a business has been protected. You keep framing the debate as if there's only one side that has rights worth discussing. I would take the position that this law protected more people than it harmed.

[R8RBOB]

Not trying to be a smartass. Your contention was that, because smoking was more widespread in the past [[pick any year), that if a restaurant had voluntarily gone smoke-free then, the ACLU [[or someone) would've sued for smokers' rights. I took issue with that, because nobody's ever had the "right" to smoke on someone else's private property. Social norms and the law aren't the same thing.
The rest is just you reading too much into it.

Today lesson for the day is this: open mouth, insert foot.

You should have quit but since you didn't let me blow the barn doors off. Your comment, "because nobody's ever had the "right" to smoke on someone else's private property" is puzzling because when did private property come in the discussion?

So let me get this right. If I was to go to Diehard's home and decided to light up a square and you told me HELL NAW, I could not sue you because it is your private property and I would have to adhere your rules yet if I was to go to Joe Bob's which is a business that cater to the public and wish for me to spend my money in that establishment decided that they would not provide service to me because I wished to light a cigarette, I would not take offense to that? Are you saying some ambulance chaser would not try to make a federal case out of it? Before you answer let me tell you a story.

In 1990 Janet Adkins, a 54 year old woman suffering from Alzheimer's disease decided that she wanted to end her life so she contacted Jack Kevorkian after hearing about his suicide machine. Kevorkian assisted Ms. Adkins with ending her life and the Oakland County prosecutor at the time Richard Thompson attempted to charge Kevorkian with assisting in a suicide. Thompson lost that case and he would lose every case against Kevorkian until he was voted out of office. Thompson kept losing because he was attempted to charge Dr. Death with laws that didn't address assisted suicide. Because the state finally changed the laws regarding assisted suicide, OC was finally able to shut down Dr. Death.

What do assisted suicide and smoking have in common? Nothing. The point is that without changes to the law, people will claim anything as a violation of their rights, hence the right to smoke in bars and restaurants. In 1987, Michigan passed the Michigan Indoor Clean Act which banned smoking in many public places excluding bars and restaurants of course but since bars and restaurants are considered "public places" they could decide if they chose to allow smoking or not.

So let me change the year to 1886 and say again, if Joe Bob's attempted to ban smoking before there was a law saying an establishment can ban, they would have been sued.

You see what you done? You have made a mountain out of a molehill. All I was attempted to point out was that if laws were not changed, we would have smokers claiming that they have a right to smoke in public settings. Where private property come from I have no idea but I suppose you threw that out there in an attempt to one-up me.

[Diehard]

Today lesson for the day is this: open mouth, insert foot.

ummm.... what?

You should have quit but since you didn't let me blow the barn doors off. Your comment, "because nobody's ever had the "right" to smoke on someone else's private property" is puzzling because when did private property come in the discussion?

Long ago, whenever "private" was defined. When was "private property" established? With the establishment of this very country.

So let me get this right. If I was to go to Diehard's home and decided to light up a square and you told me HELL NAW, I could not sue you because it is your private property and I would have to adhere your rules

Yes, you'd have to adhere to my rules. If you didn't, yes, you could sue, but you'd lose.

yet if I was to go to Joe Bob's which is a business that cater to the public and wish for me to spend my money in that establishment decided that they would not provide service to me because I wished to light a cigarette,

First of all, Joe Bob's would provide service to you. They might have some rules, like wearing a shirt and shoes, and being respectful to other patrons, and maybe stepping outside if you wish to smoke. That's not refusal of service. But it sounds like you might be that guy who refuses to follow Joe Bob's policies. You may call it a "litigant," but most people would call it an "asshole."

I would not take offense to that?

You might take offense, but you've got no legal case, no way, no how. Show me anywhere it has been written into law that a business is required to let you smoke inside their building. It don't exist.

Are you saying some ambulance chaser would not try to make a federal case out of it? Before you answer let me tell you a story.

Sorry, I'm gonna answer before your story. There may well be an amateur "ambulance chaser" who'd take the case, but they wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning. "Ambulance chasers" would be more likely to sue the business on behalf of a nonsmoker who allegedly gets sick from secondhand smoke, because "ambulance chasers" tend to sue over actual medical cases, not hurt feelings.

In 1990 Janet Adkins, a 54 year old woman suffering from Alzheimer's disease decided that she wanted to end her life so she contacted Jack Kevorkian after hearing about his suicide machine. Kevorkian assisted Ms. Adkins with ending her life and the Oakland County prosecutor at the time Richard Thompson attempted to charge Kevorkian with assisting in a suicide. Thompson lost that case and he would lose every case against Kevorkian until he was voted out of office. Thompson kept losing because he was attempted to charge Dr. Death with laws that didn't address assisted suicide. Because the state finally changed the laws regarding assisted suicide, OC was finally able to shut down Dr. Death.
What do assisted suicide and smoking have in common? Nothing.

Which was what I was about to say... a terminally ill person deciding to take their own life, as opposed to an asshole who thinks it's their g-damned "right" to stink up and possibly sicken an enclosed room full of strangers? There is nothing in common there.

The point is that without changes to the law, people will claim anything as a violation of their rights, hence the right to smoke in bars and restaurants.

Sure, people will always claim there's a "violation of their rights," but if a business voluntarily prohibited indoor smoking, the law would favor the right of everyone else in the room to breathe. Nobody would ever win a case claiming that they have a "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they want. See what I'm getting at? It's very simple. Smoke all you want, outside.

In 1987, Michigan passed the Michigan Indoor Clean Act which banned smoking in many public places excluding bars and restaurants of course but since bars and restaurants are considered "public places" they could decide if they chose to allow smoking or not.

Interesting that you called both "public places" without making any distinction. Then, as now [[with the casinos), exceptions were made for political reasons. Not defending those, but I can totally see why it happened that way. In 1987, by the way, the health risks of secondhand smoke were still under dispute, mainly because of the heavy hand of the tobacco industry.

So let me change the year to 1886 and say again, if Joe Bob's attempted to ban smoking before there was a law saying an establishment can ban, they would have been sued.

No, because people then were more concerned with, um, surviving. Lawyers were more concerned with the direction of the 110-year-old nation, not someone's hurt feelings over having to go outside to light a cigarette.
Again, show me any law, anywhere, that said "an establishment can ban." That in itself is backward. Establishments have always been able to prohibit smoking on their premises. Most didn't in 1886, because people didn't know that smoking was unhealthy. So what?

You see what you done? You have made a mountain out of a molehill.

No, you have.

All I was attempted to point out was that if laws were not changed, we would have smokers claiming that they have a right to smoke in public settings.

Again, they can claim all they want, but they'd lose in court.

Where private property come from I have no idea but I suppose you threw that out there in an attempt to one-up me.

No, it came in from the beginning of this whole debate, when people opposing the upcoming law asked whether private businesses could decide for themselves whether to allow smoking. You took it in 180 degrees in the other direction, and decided, for whatever reason, that businesses were NEVER allowed decide for themselves to NOT allow smoking. Where you got that idea, I don't know.
I suspect, however, that you're a pissed-off smoker fishing around for some sort of argument that you can use. Keep looking.

[R8RBOB]

I suspect, however, that you're a pissed-off smoker fishing around for some sort of argument that you can use. Keep looking.

No need to comment about the rest because it is nonsense. There is a ban. End of story. Your last statement just proves the point that you don't read because you rant. You should have read the first statement that I type. You could go back to the beginning of my original post but I copied for you.

"First off, I'm a ex-smoker. I support the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. I wished they could have made it happen years ago."

So, why would I need to keep looking? Care to share Mr. Know-it-All?

[gnome]

You guys have such a nice fight going on, so don't let me interupt, but I'm wondering about the possible banning of smoking in apartments, condos and co-ops.

If you are smoking in your own place, and your neighbor doesn't like it, could they call the cops and have them write you a ticket? Or could they sue you in civil court now that the State has determined that second-hand smoke is bad?

Having lived in apartments, I know that you can smell what goes on behind the doors of your neighbors ...

[R8RBOB]

You guys have such a nice fight going on, so don't let me interupt, but I'm wondering about the possible banning of smoking in apartments, condos and co-ops.

If you are smoking in your own place, and your neighbor doesn't like it, could they call the cops and have them write you a ticket? Or could they sue you in civil court now that the State has determined that second-hand smoke is bad?

Having lived in apartments, I know that you can smell what goes on behind the doors of your neighbors ...

I think I can answer this. Since private property was mention, let me say this: the owner of an apartment building or condo complex can ban smoking if it is their choice. When I lived in California and was still smoking, my manager told me it was against their rules for me to smoke in my apartment but of course I was hard-headed so I went and brought a smoke-less ashtray to reduce the second-hand smoke.

I don't think the next-door neighbor don't need to call the police. If smoking is banned and you continue to smoke then all they need to do is tell the manager and have you evicted for violation of their rules.

Oh, there is no fight, Mr. Know-It-All just like to rant and rant so I gave him something to rant about though I agree with his argument about banning smoking.

[gnome]

Oh, there is no fight, Mr. Know-It-All ...

R8R...I'm glad to know there is peace all across the internetz.

Just wondering what people think about the idea concerning apartments. An apartment complex is a business. Even if it is comprised of separate domiciles, the larger building is a business and since you can't smoke in a business I just wonder if an apartment complex is automatically part of the ban?

A condo or co-op is owned by the co-owners, so I'd imagine that the co-owners would have to pass non-smoking covenants to their by-laws; but I'm wondering about apartments.

[Novine]

Read the law. It specifically excludes homes and residences.

[bailey]

Read the law. It specifically excludes homes and residences.

FOR NOW YOU MEAN! If Barry Sorento has any say, we'll have the jackboots at our doors death paneling us and stripping away our rights to smoke in our own homes. I've heard that the only way to hide from Barry's new SS is to gay marry a minor....then you will pass as one of them. That is all these socialist fascist democrats want anyway.... to strip away the baby jebus's commandments and make us all secret muslin, gay marrying, non-smokers.

[R8RBOB]

FOR NOW YOU MEAN! If Barry Sorento has any say, we'll have the jackboots at our doors death paneling us and stripping away our rights to smoke in our own homes. I've heard that the only way to hide from Barry's new SS is to gay marry a minor....then you will pass as one of them. That is all these socialist fascist democrats want anyway.... to strip away the baby jebus's commandments and make us all secret muslin, gay marrying, non-smokers.

Ha Ha, are you one of those bitter people that "Barry" was referring to last year? Mad because your rights are stripped away. Where have you been? Can you say Patriot Act without drooling?

BTW, It is Soetoro not Sorento and it is Jesus not Jebus. [[Homer Simpson fan, I suppose) Just saying....

[Diehard]

No need to comment about the rest because it is nonsense.

I debunked every single one of your points. That's nonsense?

There is a ban. End of story.

Yup. A year from now we'll look back at all this and laugh.

Your last statement just proves the point that you don't read because you rant.

How could I go through every single point, one by one, without reading them first, you silly goose?

You should have read the first statement that I type. You could go back to the beginning of my original post but I copied for you.

"First off, I'm a ex-smoker. I support the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. I wished they could have made it happen years ago."

OK, you got me there. That was several posts back. You certainly rant like a pissed-off smoker who's grasping at straws.

So, why would I need to keep looking? Care to share Mr. Know-it-All?

Well, had YOU gone far enough back, you'd know to call me MS. Know-it-All. No biggie. If you don't care to read any of what I wrote, that's OK. But it's all there for you.
Y'know, if we're going to look back on this a year from now and laugh, why now laugh about it now?

[Diehard]

If this is considered a "fight," then I'm done. I didn't ask for a fight. I sometimes have a hard time sitting back and watching as misinformation gets passed around, that's all.

[Mikeg]

A condo or co-op is owned by the co-owners, so I'd imagine that the co-owners would have to pass non-smoking covenants to their by-laws;

You imagine wrong.

Per their Master Deed, the co-owners have an exclusive right to occupy their unit and they also have an undivided and inseparable right to share with the other co-owners the use and enjoyment of the common elements, which excludes the individual units.

The Use and Occupancy Restrictions section of their Bylaws is used to regulate specific activities on the common elements and within the individual units. This section always prohibits any unlawful activity within the units, as well as on the common elements. Last I checked, it was still legal to smoke within a private residence and on private property such as the condominium grounds. The further regulation of any legal activity within the individual units has to be based on whether it:

• negatively impacts the visual appearance of the units from the common elements
• is loud enough to be an annoyance to other co-owners
• poses an insurance risk such that it impacts the cost of the Association's insurance policy, in which case the Bylaws can only require the co-owner to pay for incremental insurance premium costs. However, legal smoking within individual units is already priced in the premium costs, so the co-owners cannot use this method to regulate smoking within individual units.

[R8RBOB]

I debunked every single one of your points. That's nonsense?

Yup. A year from now we'll look back at all this and laugh.

How could I go through every single point, one by one, without reading them first, you silly goose?

OK, you got me there. That was several posts back. You certainly rant like a pissed-off smoker who's grasping at straws.

Well, had YOU gone far enough back, you'd know to call me MS. Know-it-All. No biggie. If you don't care to read any of what I wrote, that's OK. But it's all there for you.
Y'know, if we're going to look back on this a year from now and laugh, why now laugh about it now?

Like I said before if only the first statement of my original posting you would realize that you were debating an non-issue with me. Because you skipped my comment, you thought you would debate another piss-off smoker. I have not had a cigarette since 6/10/2002 and I will enjoy going to my favorite strip joint come next May knowing that I don't have to suck the second-hand smoke of the waitresses. My original comments were about rights and rights only. Smokers do feel that their rights are being violated. I told you to stop thinking like a droid.

BTW, I have gone way back to call you Mr. Know-it-All. You ask as if I joined yesterday. I have been here for a while. So, with that, I will let you go back to your ranting. I'm out. Peace.

[Diehard]

Like I said before if only the first statement of my original posting you would realize that you were debating an non-issue with me.

If it's a non-issue, then why did you even start? Who's doing the "ranting" here?

Because you skipped my comment, you thought you would debate another piss-off smoker.

I didn't skip your comment. I've been poring over every little silly thing you've posted so far. Have you not noticed?

I have not had a cigarette since 6/10/2002 and I will enjoy going to my favorite strip joint come next May knowing that I don't have to suck the second-hand smoke of the waitresses.

It all makes sense now. You do debate with the intelligence level of a mook who stuffs his hard-earned money in strangers' underwear.

My original comments were about rights and rights only. Smokers do feel that their rights are being violated. I told you to stop thinking like a droid.

If I've been "thinking like a droid," then sue me. My points are all valid and you've done nothing to refute any of them other than calling me Mr. Know-It-All, which really hurts. *sniff*

BTW, I have gone way back to call you Mr. Know-it-All.

Oooo, you skipped MY comment. The proper term would be MS. Know-It-All.

You ask as if I joined yesterday. I have been here for a while. So, with that, I will let you go back to your ranting. I'm out. Peace.

I'm done too. Go ahead and have the last word. Please think of a more creative name to call me, would you?

[gnome]

You imagine wrong.

Per their Master Deed, the co-owners have an exclusive right to occupy their unit and they also have an undivided and inseparable right to share with the other co-owners the use and enjoyment of the common elements, which excludes the individual units.

The Use and Occupancy Restrictions section of their Bylaws is used to regulate specific activities on the common elements and within the individual units. This section always prohibits any unlawful activity within the units, as well as on the common elements. Last I checked, it was still legal to smoke within a private residence and on private property such as the condominium grounds. The further regulation of any legal activity within the individual units has to be based on whether it:

• negatively impacts the visual appearance of the units from the common elements
• is loud enough to be an annoyance to other co-owners
• poses an insurance risk such that it impacts the cost of the Association's insurance policy, in which case the Bylaws can only require the co-owner to pay for incremental insurance premium costs. However, legal smoking within individual units is already priced in the premium costs, so the co-owners cannot use this method to regulate smoking within individual units.

Thank you MikeG... you seem to be in the know about such things, so while Novine insists that smoking can't be banned in apartments, does that include hallways or other common areas? Outside? how about under an umbrella? Tent?

Could an apartment owner ban his customers, aka renters, from smoking in common areas?

[Mikeg]

Thank you MikeG... you seem to be in the know about such things, so while Novine insists that smoking can't be banned in apartments, does that include hallways or other common areas? Outside? how about under an umbrella? Tent?

Could an apartment owner ban his customers, aka renters, from smoking in common areas?

I purchased and moved into a condominium in 2005 after 30 years as a homeowner and a lifetime of non-smoking. Since Jan. 2008 I have been serving on our Condo Association's Board of Directors. I know a lot more about the rights of homeowners and condo associations/co-owners than I do about the rights of apartment owners/renters.

Novine claims that everyone has "a right to be free of toxic smoke". I would suggest that we have conferred upon the government the power to protect the citizenry from harmful levels of known, dangerous pollutants and that we have a right to expect them to do exactly that. To bolster his argument he makes an analogy that doesn't currently stand up under closer scrutiny, specifically equating airborne tobacco smoke to pollution run-off from a neighbor's property. Unlike airborne tobacco smoke, surface run-off, groundwater and airborne emissions of dangerous substances have already been identified by the EPA/state/county as pollutants when they exceed a certain threshold limit and their legal use is permitted as long as everyone follows the rules and stays within those limits [[in rare cases with extremely low safe limits, their use is banned outright). In the absence of an outright ban, everyone still has the right to use the regulated substances as long as they adhere to the government's requirements and threshold limits.

With regards to the recently passed bill, instead of regulating the airborne smoke or the outright banning of tobacco burning, the government will be selectively prohibiting the use of a legal substance that produces currently unregulated emissions in the smoke.

Because of the selective applicability of this law involving a source of unregulated emissions, it cannot be argued with a straight face that the government's right to impose this law is derived from the powers that we have given them to legislate for the benefit of their citizen's health, safety and welfare. It is a naked attempt by our legislators to prohibit a legal activity in the absence of their collective political will to utilize their constitutional powers for either regulating the dangerous emissions or outright banning the sale and use of the substance that causes the dangerous emissions. By doing this "end-around", they are chipping away at the liberties we have retained for ourselves to decide where, when and how to engage in legal and unregulated activities.

[mauser]

That's just life in a civilized society. But you can't say the government isn't infringing on what was otherwise their choice to make.

Replace "nicotine" with "asbestos" for the sake of argument - and then try say that the employer has the "right" to expose the employee to the "product".

[gnome]

That's why you're so loved Mauser: never over-stating, never grandstanding, never pumping up your chest with unsubstantiated opinion masqueraded as fact.

Good job.

---

Thank MikeG, excellent post. I can see why you're on the Condo Board.

[Thames]

Replace "nicotine" with "asbestos" for the sake of argument - and then try say that the employer has the "right" to expose the employee to the "product".

For the sake of argument: Is the employer a casino owner? Do Indian casinos expose their employees to asbestos, and thereby have an unfair advantage to other casinos?

If he answer to those questions is yes, then yes, apparently employers would have the "right" to expose the employee to the "product".

[Goose]

For the sake of argument: Is the employer a casino owner? Do Indian casinos expose their employees to asbestos, and thereby have an unfair advantage to other casinos?

If he answer to those questions is yes, then yes, apparently employers would have the "right" to expose the employee to the "product".

love these "replace this with this" scenarios...

first of all, asbestos containing materials have been banned from much use and when anyone is in contact with asbestos strict handling guidelines must be followed

cigarettes, on the other hand, can be purchased at any corner store, gas station, 7-11, etc etc... with nothing more than a card showing you are 18

you might as well replace "nicotine" with "psychopath swinging a machete" because it makes just as little logical sense.....

[jbd441]

Read the law. It specifically excludes homes and residences.

There is some gray area here. For instance, I'm a landlord and I write into the lease that smoking is not permitted in the home I lease. A neighbor may call me to rat on my tenant but short of eviction for breaking the terms of the lease there is little I can do. However I can keep their deposit to repair the damage done by the cigarette smoke.
Same goes for rental cars. They charge a $250 fine for smoking in their rentals.

[Johnlodge]

I'm done debating the topic. I don't smoke, so I can't muster any more motivation than I already have. All I would say is don't be so quick to jeer those who would err on the side if individual liberty, especially when choice is already available to avoid said "hazard" by means of other existing options. And ESPECIALLY when the government creates second-class citizens [[casino employees) who apparently don't have the same supposed inherent "rights" as all other employees in private businesses.

Now I will wait until May when our new "rights" kick in so I can enjoy some fresh air at the corner bar.

[milesdriven]

In Ohio, they allow smoking on outdoor patios. Michigan's ban will not, which means all bars will have to hold credit cards, IDs, or cash out all customers each time they go out for a smoke, unless they know them well. I would like someone to enlighten me to the health risks associated with smoking on an outdoor patio.

[econ expat]

In Ohio, they allow smoking on outdoor patios. Michigan's ban will not, which means all bars will have to hold credit cards, IDs, or cash out all customers each time they go out for a smoke, unless they know them well. I would like someone to enlighten me to the health risks associated with smoking on an outdoor patio.

I was in another state about 5 years ago when they enacted a smoking ban. Just months earlier one town had a new cigar bar in their tourist brochure. No exceptions, Bar closed.
They DID allow smoking on a patio, provided no employees worked in the area.
I went to one popular night spot. No band, since 90% of the customers went out on the patio. Bar seated about 200 people, there was 5-6 people indoors. 3 bartenders, no more wait staff- had to come indoors, wait in line at the bar to order drinks. Even the pool table and dart boards were out on the patio.
Overheard one person outside complain about the 'cloud of smoke', friends in the same group advised that there was 5-6 people sitting indoors that might be lonesome.