« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Smoke-free mob turns Tar Heel state deeper shade of blue

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  May 14th, 2009 at 01:26 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tar Heel state turns deeper shade of blue as property rights trashed. Sir Walter Raleigh and George Washington heard rolling over in their graves.

Imagine you worked 16 hours a day since the age of 16 for 16 years to save the $16K for the down payment on a restaurant-bar and then worked 16 hours a day for 16 more years to establish a reputation and loyal clientele only to look outside today and see your private property Liberty rights in the U.S. Constitution being torn to shreds by a majority bearing these:

Where is your just compensation when Governor Beverly Perdue signs the bill replacing the Constitution?

Smoking will soon be prohibited in bars and restaurants across North Carolina, a state where tobacco was once revered for the money it generated for farmers, universities and community institutions.

The state House on Wednesday narrowly approved a compromise with the Senate on a smoking ban. The legislation moves to Gov. Bev Perdue, who said she will sign the bill into law. The ban would take effect Jan. 2.

Perdue, a Democrat, called it “an important and historic day for North Carolina.”

The bill, which passed 62-56, prohibits smoking inside bars and restaurants but doesn’t affect outside areas of those businesses. The bill makes an exception for cigar bars, although bars cannot start selling cigars to skirt the ban.

Fax Governor Perdue at (919)733-2120 if you object to this brazen abrogation of the Liberty our forefathers fought and died for, especially if you are a non-smoker that values private property rights that the Founders deemed essential to real freedom.

Whoever thought that the rights to the fruits of one’s labor would be a “minority” right that needed protection from a tyrannical majority? And don’t start in with the second-hand smoke health danger for workers. We don’t close textile plants and coal mines do we? No, at least not yet. Rather, we issue masks.

What is also so insidious about this exercise of raw majoritarian power is that the free market already provides non-smoking environments at the overwhelming majority of bars and restaurants.

This is a sad day for the South and America because this is just the beginning, and if you thought 2008 was a fluke due to eight years of Bush fatigue and excitement for Obama, disabuse yourself.

North Carolina skipped purple and tar heel blue for a darker, more foreboding hue.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

DeVine archive on smoking ban issue here.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Kyle-MI

    Did the good voters of North Carolina really put Democrats in charge to get smoke-free bars? I hardly think that this was a top issue for the vast majority of voters. Even if they favored smoke-free bars, I don’t think anyone will increase their favorable view of Democrats because of this. Like the country as a whole, don’t you think this will produce some backlash? An honest question for you: why did NC turn blue last year? What were the top issues that favored the Democrats there?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    yankee transplants that vote like they did up north despite the fact that they fled lib policies

    huge obama black and lib turnout

    gop fatigue that was to be historically expected

    weak gop candidate that still could have won had he opposed the bailout as he had gone ahead thanks to palin

  • AKSteveB

    in NC without a candidate that draws a huge black turnout?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    before the 2008 Obama very huge black turnout

    and remember, NC’s black population is big (20%), but not nearly as large as many others

    http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=312

  • restofva

    happened here in Phillip Morris, Virginia a few months ago. I believe ours also has some kind of exception for those special ventilated areas.

  • bk

    Many tobacco farmers get some federal subsidies right? How about if the state taxes the subsidies at 100%?

    They could do all sorts of things to restrict growth of tobacco I bet. Who cares about whatever tax money is brought in by those farmers and the downstream products. Let’s get rid of all of it.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …but I don’t have a problem with banning smoking in restaurants so long as the playing field is level for all restaurants. I don’t see where permission to smoke is a property right – that’s the same kind of expansive reading of a “right” that gave us the “right” to privacy and other emanations.

    The point is that one’s pleasure of smoking in a restaurant does impinge on the pleasure of others to enjoy their meal for which they are paying unmolested by the smoke.

    Plus the health of the workers – and don’t talk about masks, do you really want to be served by waitresses in masks? – and have well do you think people in the back are going to work with masks? Moreover, textile plants and coal mines are not public access areas – and the health danger there is intrinsic to the work process, not introduced by outsiders.

    And in many locales, finding a non-smoking restaurant to work in may be extermely limited or non-existent.

    Which means you’re reduced to championing the restaurant owner’s unfettered right to allow smoking. That’s not strong enough for me, again so long as the state action is equitable in its application.

    In the end, I cannot think of another social activity that is so widespread in its practice where we have two large groups with irreconciliable rights when forced to coexist. And the state is empowered to resolve such conflicts.

    I don’t see a fundamental violation of conservative principles, even though I’m well aware that the motives of the most legislators probably are not based on conservative principles But I can live with this slippery slope because I think one can prevent an uncontrolled descent.

    I don’t expect to convince you, but I do want to establish that harmonizing bans with conservatism is possible, whether or not you think it’s the correct action.

  • restofva

    I don’t believe that makes you a heretic. I have many conservative friends that feel the same as you. I guess my position would be that I would just as soon smoking be outlawed completely than to dictate to small business owners which legal activities they can allow.
    For full disclosure, I am a smoker (for a lot longer than I’ve wanted to be) but refrain from smoking in restaurants unless I am absolutely sure one of the “first available seating” folks didn’t get seated near me in the smoking section. So the law itself doesn’t really concern me so much as the way it is forced. Although I do enjoy a smokey bar with a few Killians.
    And who knows, between this and the new taxes, it may help me quit. But then again some child might go without health insurance if I do.
    What to do?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    so I either stay on my property or go to someone else’s property where my pleasure is greater.

    The Founders considered private property rights the most important ingredient for true Liberty.

    There is no right to find pleasure on another person’s property.

    At least you are honest that the mob is exerting their will for aesthetic reasons and not the health canard.

    I think this ban is already a long ways down the slope.

  • stang

    “I don?t see a fundamental violation of conservative principles”

    Everything you have argued here is antithetical to the primacy of individual liberty as well as the concept of private property. I don’t see how you can claim any congruence with conservative principles.

    What you are arguing for here is majoritarian tyranny and the abrogation of private property rights by said majority. The rest of your arguments are the strawmen of someone too lazy to exercise their own discretion in choosing a suitable establishment to dine or work at. You would rather have the state enforce your likes and dislikes.

    If it’s that you feel so strongly about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, why aren’t you campaigning for a complete ban of all tobacco products? Or alcohol? Or big greasy cheeseburgers? These are also alleged to be harmful.

    “But I can live with this slippery slope because I think one can prevent an uncontrolled descent.”

    Really?! Please explain just how you envision acheiving that feat. If you can explain a satisfactory methodology to acheive that result, then you will have my complete and undivided attention. Note: A controlled descent into tyranny is not an acceptable response!

    ?Of all tyrannies a country can suffer, the worst is the tyranny of the majority.?

    Dr. William Ralph Inge

  • Doc Holliday

    Sorry, in this case you are a heretic. When in doubt, remember bans are things used by Marxists, Fascists, and Socialists, basically Statists. If you agree they should be able to ban smoking on private property, then you must agree they can ban coal use. Banning smoking in Virginia and NC is the same as banning coal in West Virginia.

    I have said this many times, but I know some will never get it. The key is the precedence. It matters not whether you smoke or are allergic to smoke. What matters is that they are setting the precedent for social engineering. I know you have a bad habit in their somewhere Civil, is it coffee? is it candy? is it french fries? Sooner or later the Statists will ban something you DO care about, and don’t expect any smokers or libertarians to take your side. They will take your side, but you should not expect it.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    If it?s that you feel so strongly about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, why aren?t you campaigning for a complete ban of all tobacco products? Or alcohol? Or big greasy cheeseburgers? These are also alleged to be harmful.

    I’m talking about harm to third parties, not to the user (first party). Your other example are “nanny state” efforts to prevent first parties from harming themselves where no third parties are involved (except in the case of excessive alcohol ingestion, which can affect third parties – as in drunk driving – and there we do have state intervention).

    Moreover, I’m not calling for a ban on private use in one’s own property. The state has no legitimate interest there. (That’s where the hard-core lovers of intrusive government show their hand. The same people who would vigorously argue for government to keep out their bedroom have no problem with sticking their noses in other areas of people’s private activities “to protect them from themselves). So no extrapolating my argument beyond my limits.

    My concern arises when the smoking occurs in public setting where it conflicts with third parties (non-smokers). State action is legitmate to settle large scale conflicts of interest. (I don’t say required, but I do say legitimate.)

    As far as property rights of the restaurant owner, we do have settled law that the government can put limitations on their operation (which you and Mike are calling property rights) so long as they are applied and enforced in an equitable manner. We’ve got laws on hiring practices, workplace safety, zoning, non-discrimination in service, disability access), And particulary, owner rights of establishment that provide public accomodation have to conform to non-discrimination laws.So owner “property rights” can be restricted by the state in certain spheres of activity.

    Now I’m certainly on the side of those who say that in a disturbing number of these areas – e.g. zoning, eminent domain [Kelo], excessive safety regulation, etc. – governments have gone way too far down the slippery slope.

    So then the argument comes down to whether 1) the owner’s right to allow smoking should be viewed as a property right; and 2) whether that right should override rights of customers not to be assaulted by other customers at the owner’s suffrance or lead to prspective employees being forced to choose between health risk (from external agents, not intrinsic health or safety hazard) and employment.

    We may disagree on where the balance should be drawn, but there are conflicting claims – and your calling the non-smokers “lazy” is as much an ad hominem than if I were to calls smokers “inconsiderate” or “hostile” – it doesn’t add any light to the issues.

    As far as the slippery slope, primarily I address that by restricting the reach of the state to regulate smoking to public accomodation establishments and state-owned property. These are both well-defined spheres of activity – and the clarity and clear boundaries should enable a defendable perimeter.

    I’m somewhat torn about private businesses that are not public accomodations in regards to employees smoking because at this point I can’t identify a defensible perimenter under conservative principles once you let government inside. I would like to on health grounds, but at this point I’d have to say no.

    (As a practical matter, there is the backdoor of harassment/hostile work environment that I’m sure someone try to use – and that is a well-known slippery slope that has slipped too far.)

    You may disagree with the merits of where I would locate the perimeter, but I still maintain that the process I’m employing is within conservative jurisprudence. And that adherence does constraint me versus where I might go “if I were king”…

  • Pomme

    The balance here should be the business owners should decide whether they want to allow smoking and where/how much, because it is their property. I, as an allergic person, would then get to decide if they merit my business or just be too much of a health risk.

    WalMart has actually been very helpful to me by setting the boundaries around the doors so I could enter the store without requiring medical attention. Those who want to smoke, only have to move the ten feet away to do so.

    I agree there has to be consideration on both parties here, and the government shouldn’t be a nanny.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Aggression in the public realm does on entail a right equal to the right of other occupants to be left alone. I’ve defined the public sphere above. And again, we’re talking about the state mediating a conflict between rights that results in some level of ban. Consumption of coffee, candy, french fries is not an aggressive act that conflicts with another’s rights. No conflict, no legitimate grounds for state action.

    It’s late tonight; I’d better shop while I’m ahead..

  • DONTREADONME

    we did that once. How’d that work out, hmmm, OK? Why did I bring up alcohol, well because alcohol kills upwards 100,000 people a year, while cigarrettes are attributed to 400,000 related deaths and dropping. Cigarrette smokers are now in recession while alcohol remains consumed by 44% of alcohol consumption aged adults, and it is ever increasing.

    That being said, eventually smoking related deaths will eventually decrease below that of alcohol related deaths, so we must now ban alcohol in bars and restaurants since oh wait, it is as poor an argument as that against tobacco.

  • DONTREADONME

    tobacco users, are not banned from restaurants because the left has not found a way to stop users of chewing tobacco, but they are taxed the same. I wonder what’s next? We hold the line, the left wins and we fall back, we hold the line a little farther left, we lose and we fall back. Where does the BS stop.

    They already succeeded in banning tobacco in bars and restaurants in Virginia, I suppose NC was next.

    BTW, ban tobacco and tax it to the hills because we can not have smokers on Government Zero Health Care. So, put down that cigarrette that trans fat treat, that soda, that beer, that sugar, coffee, cake, pudding, and stop consuming anything that contains butter. Again, this line will keep moving left if we do not stop it. Unfortunately, the Governor of NC will not listen to a Virginian.

  • Doc Holliday

    you are counting how many angels can stand on a pin. Pomme is right, the market should decide. Civil, you know damn well there have always been smoke free restaurants. Those allergic to smoke, or those that just can’t stand it, can patronize those establishments.

    You might be surprised that I do not smoke. But if you knew me, you would also know my personal habits are irrelevant. I believe in individual liberty and the free market system. I do not believe in government mandates and the nanny state.

    You say the coal issue is a false equivalency, but in that you are wrong. The issue is you are willing to deprive fellow conservatives if an infringement on their rights does not affect you. I hope you think on it a bit more, because I do not want to say the obvious conclusion.

  • Doc Holliday

    Next time you walk by a smoker, file an assault charge. If you live in CA or MA you might get them thrown in jail. If you live in Dixie, you might just be banned.

  • stang

    I guess I would be the liberal (in the classical sense in this case) as you are indeed conservative (in the classical sense in this case) in the application of your so called solutions. You are advocating gaming the current political system to provide the desired outcome using the government as your agent. If we’re gonna do realpolitik, then yes, your ideas probably have some merit. Your rationalizations are pretty good. And “settled law” is the bludgeon of the tyrant.

    But your’s is not the original sin. Your’s is just one more made possible (and even acceptable in some circles) by preceding assaults on republican, constitutional princples. The founders of this country held individual liberty and private property to be of the greatest import, not the will of the majority. Far too many have forgotten or have never known.

    The comment that you thought was ad hominem was not written with that intent but I can see how you think so.( excuser moi) no edit

    ?Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.?

    William Pitt

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    I was one of those in support of the anti-smoking laws for restaurants,(but not bars) because of all the many many times I was assaulted by stinky cigarette smoke in my life, ruining my meals.

    To some extent smokers brought this on themselves with their selfish behavior over the years. (libertarian arguments were not high on my priorities when I was choking for breath)

    I will also say that I think all of these laws have gone too far. There is no need for bans in bars and dance halls, those are places that you should expect smoke.

    But the argument that you can just go to places where there is no smoking is a false one. In absence of the ban there were never ANY such places. For the simple reason that the addicts would not go to the non smoking restaurants and so the owners believed that they were eliminating a large portion of their client base.

    Curiously, if the bans were repealed I don’t think it would be a problem now, I believe there would still be some non smoking places since they have been shown that they can make money with a non smoking clientele. But it took the bans in the first place to show them that.

    The balance and dance of competing rights often cannot exist as an academic argument, In practical real world experience things are often different than the ideal.

  • Doc Holliday

    “But the argument that you can just go to places where there is no smoking is a false one. In absence of the ban there were never ANY such places.”

    Maybe you live in Winston Salem or something, but in normal America there are tens of thousands of restaurants that do not allow smoking on their own accord. I know of several California based chains that came into VA having no clue it was even legal to smoke in a restaurant. I am sorry sir, but you can not prove a negative. I know many places that do not allow smoking, how are you going to prove they do not exist?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    The slope done slipped

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    we banned everything but arugula and $100/lb corned beef from a Chicago deli that in a 100 years, 100% of everyone will still eventually die.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    and in SC and GA and have been for 15-20 years.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    “Moreover, I?m not calling for a ban on private use in one?s own property. The state has no legitimate interest there.

    My concern arises when the smoking occurs in public setting where it conflicts with third parties (non-smokers).”

    Restaurants and bars are private property.

    Yes, if the government wants to ban smoking on publicly owned property, then that is a matter of politics.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    I avoided saying “assault” precisely to remove this from criminal law to avoid a response like yours.

    What I mean by aggression is that someone (or their agency) invades your space without your consent. Assault is a type of aggression, but there are many (probably most) other aggressions that are not assault, For instance, yelling at someone is aggression, not assault. Driving in traffic often involves various aggressions (and is an area of state regulation).

    So is smoke from someone else that enters my breathing space. My liberty has been diminished by someone else’s free act. I have a right to defend myself.

    The fact that this arises by suffrance of another (the business owner) does not take away the diminishment – though it does add another set of rights (his property rights) to the interaction.

    Now we can argue how the conflict should be resolved and whether the state should get involved, but that doesn’t affect that my freedom has been impinged upon by an act of another.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    I was not referring at all to the coal issue. I’m not familiar with it and thus have no way of knowing what position I would take on it – or how it would relate to my arguments regarding smoking and state action.

    So please don’t jump to the conclusion that I am “willing to deprive fellow conservatives if an infringement on their rights does not affect you” before I have a chance to understand and address that issue.

    What I was saying that is that aggression does not create a right equal to the deprevation of freedom that the object of that aggression has thereby experienced. (See down-thread for my definition of aggression). That was in response to your (probably snarky) title:

    and your desire for a smoke free restaurant impinges on the rights of those who want it filled with smoke

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Unless you’re going to argue for property rights trumping all state constraints – which means repealing equal access laws and all workplace safety laws, etc as unconstitutional – then you have to accede that the state at times can override private property rights of operators of public accomodations.

    Again, we can argue over whether the state should intervene in the case of smoking, but hopefully we’re not arguing the the state is estopped from any possible action.

    Which is what you seem to be arguing in your objection here.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    It sounds like the flash point is not the conflict between smoker and non-smoker, but rather the issue of the state infringing on the private property rights of the owner of the restaurant.

    Your points about “original sin” are well taken.

    But here, as I noted below with Mike, we’re specifically dealing with a subset of private property called public accomodations. And there I believe it has been settled that the state does have some interests that override certain private property rights (e.g in non-discrmination, workplace safety) – though the specifics are certainly topics of sharp debate.

    So the parameters really come down to 1) does the state have rights to abridge private property rights of operators of public accomodations; and if yes, 2) does smoking fit without the scope of possible state action.

    If your answer to 1) is no, then there’s nothing to discuss further; the owner’s decision overrides everything else. If you agree that the answer to 1) is yes, then we can debate over the answer to 2) – but let’s not say the sky is falling at the onset.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    to justify their impositions.

    Their first strategy was that second-hand smoke was a health hazard to customers but gave that up as their main argument years ago given the lack of a right to dine on another’s property.

    That is why they switched strategy to protect workers.

    But on that, they belie their true motives my their refusal to advocate masks for the workers.

    You reveal the truth of the motives by your desire for more pleasure.

    If a private property owner were causing a true health hazard to those off their property, then they could be regulated.

    And certainly even true health hazards on the property can be regulated, but only the glazed over eyes crowd really believes that second hand smoke is actually deadly.

    I hear that f you roll that stuff up in a cylindrical object and suck down 20 a day for 40 years you might die. So, yes, if you mix that stuff at one part per billion in the air, you would die in what, 5000 years?

    If the just compensation clause is to have any meaning, then property owners should be paid damages for this taking. Yes, the state can regulate against true hazards, but a mob can also call anything a hazard can’t they?

    At least you are honest and admit its about a majority maximizing its desired pleasure at the expense of a minority.

  • stang

    No, states do not have “rights” and “public accommomdation” is a legal construct meant to negate the rights of private property owners and allow further interference by the state. It is the nature of the state to do so. I find your faith in government’s ability to restrain itself very troubling.

    No where in your arguments have you demonstrated how the individual private property rights of the restaurant owner are being protected or furthered. The fact that all restaurant owners are restricted equally does not qualify as a justification for the restriction of their property rights.

    Nor have you demonstrated any harm to any individual who may voluntarily choose to not dine or work at an establishment whose owner may choose to allow behaviors that you find distatsteful. Nor does the state compel you to patronize that establishment. Why are you so eager to embrace the mantle of the state compelling behavior to suit your wants and desires?

    You are not seeing the forest. You are looking at trees. And in many ways, the sky has already fallen. The evidence of that is provided by your attempt here to justify the further usurpation of individual liberty and private property rights by the state.

    ?We as a people seem to be losing all sense of respect for ourselves and our fellow men, with the result that in a thoroughly intolerant attitude we hesitate not a minute to secure an organized minority, or even a majority, to attempt by resolution or law to impose our will on a large body of people in matters where no moral wrong is involved and where liberty is curtailed.?

    John J. Raskob

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Well, I certainly generated some heat, as well as discovering the flash point, which is over the restaurant owner’s property rights, not over an advocacy of smokers rights.

    Two Republican conservative activist friends back East work together on a number of issues, but they are at loggerheads over this smoking ban issue. So I’m not surprised to see controversy here.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    i am right.

  • Doc Holliday

    but I just think this is a further example of how everyone seems to be getting soft. Crap happens, not everything should be settled by the government. Does the bus with bad emissions not commit the same aggression when it drives by you?

    In the end, I just think the government is not the way to make this world a better place.

  • Doc Holliday

    we have made government dependence such a large part of our lives, we may never be able to follow true individual liberty ideas. Think about it, since we have to pay ever higher insurance premiums, medicare, and medicaid, you could argue that a guy puffing in his own house is committing an act of aggression against you personally. This callous fool is going to raise your taxes? And what about that fat guy in line at Krispy Kreme? Is he not also just robbing you blind?

    We reap what we sow, and it seems we have sewn at really bad crop.

  • aesthete

    Aggression is a part of daily life, from loud noises, to bad customer service, to unsolicited flirtation. This occurs in both the public and the private spheres, and there really is no way around it apart from mediation between yourself and the other parties involved. Moreover, the term “aggression” is so subjective and encompasses so many human behaviors that an attempt to legislate it out of existence will only unduly infringe on the individual and collective rights of all.

    I respect your opinion, and still think that you’re among the top contributors in Redstate, but you’re very, very wrong if you think that the rather contemporary (and vaguely vacuous) idea of a “right to non-aggression” takes precedence over the right to use one’s property as one sees fit, a defined and well-established right that is the cornerstone of Western prosperity (well, according to Austrian Economics, anyways :) ).

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    the individual

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Haven’t had a Republican Gov since the Bush 41 years

    Even though it’s been a solid red state at the presidential level. Go figure.

    As Gamecock notes, Yankee transplants are bring their voting habits from the states they are leaving.

  • ocleverone
  • http://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com/ snarkandboobs

    there is now a smoking ban in all of downtown Greenville. This is something that really irks me; one is not REQUIRED to go to a bar or a restaurant. If the proprietor wishes to accommodate smokers, that is his or her right. Go to a bar or restaurant that wishes to accommodate non-smokers…….many already were non-smoking on their own accord. It’s a business decision.

  • jeffreywturner

    Living in Greenville myself, I did notice that when the ban was declared overturned briefly and establishments had the option to allow smoking again, several did not. I inquired about this and it turns out that business actually improved after the ban at several establishments. The owners seemed to think this is because the new patrons who frequented them because of the lack of smoke outnumbered the ones who stopped because of it.

    Not that this should encourage people to support the governmental bans, but it is an interesting phenomenon to take note of if you are an establishment owner considering one for your establishment.

  • http://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com/ snarkandboobs

    business owners can deem on their own what works best for their business and their clientele.

    Also, howdy neighbor! I live outside of Greenville, moved here 5 years ago from NJ (yes, I’m a damn yankee!) and just love it.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Common_Cents

    At a store like Spencers you can get farts in a can. I have carried one w/ me a few times for fun when out and about. If someone lights up by me w/out asking, I rip open a can of farts. Dang near comes to blows. LOL.

    Steve Martin had a stand up routine about this. “Mind if I smoke? Noooo, mind if I fart?”

    If those that defend smokers infringing other peoples rights (not even saying we need a law to ban it but rather a little respect for others) came home smelling like farts every time they were out, they’d go ballistic. Same things in bars if you came home w/ a little of someone elses vomit on you from their drinking, you’d go ballistic.

    This is separate from any health debate.

    It’s the fact that smoking has been around for quite awhile that makes change harder to accept. Smokers have taken smoking for granted and have not respected the notion that their rights end where another’s begins.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Now, I have no problem with social pressure, and over the past 20 years the free market has provided plenty of non-smoking restaurants. But you want the state to dictate how one can use their property in an extreme way. Remember, the same mob that can ban smoking could also require smoking.