If it's smoke you hate, ban cars!

[muckefuck]

Those of you interested in discussion of Chicago's new comprehensive smoking ban and its relationship to civil rights could do worse than to check out Issue Chick's most recent rant and the ensuing commentary--in particular, the comments of phaedrusdeinus (some of which are conveniently located at the top of the page). At the risk of doing violence to his arguments, I'll attempt to briefly summarise one of them: A ban this sweeping can only be justified on health grounds. However, if health is the issue, then why wasn't it dealt with in the same way as other health issues, like food quality, i.e. by setting minimum standards and then leaving it up individual proprietors to determine how best to meet them, rather than by attempting to legislate behaviour?

shawnwrites also has an intriguing idea in the form of a smoking license, which doesn't really address the underlying rights issues, but allows for more individual choice than the ban while at the same time putting more money in the pockets of the revenue department.

Comments

[bunj.livejournal.com]

However, if health is the issue, then why wasn't it dealt with in the same way as other health issues, like food quality, i.e. by setting minimum standards and then leaving it up individual proprietors to determine how best to meet them, rather than by attempting to legislate behaviour?

The problem with this idea is that it is not the proprietor which is creating the smoke. If there were a minimum standard of particulates in the air, then you're putting the proprietor in the position of turning business away on busy nights.

I like the idea of a license, which is more-or-less the compromise worked out by the city, whereby bars can allow smoking if they install air purifiers.

Personally, I think the whole thing is a crock fueled by hysteria and tyranny of the majority. None of the arguments ring true for me.* Then again, if I were really worried I wouldn't live with a smoker.

*I'll be happy to ennumerate them if requested, but as the arguments for are many and varied, so are my arguments against.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

If there were a minimum standard of particulates in the air, then you're putting the proprietor in the position of turning business away on busy nights.

And if you set maximum occupancy limits for fire code reasons, then you also put the proprietor in the posistion of turning business away on busy nights. Nu?

[bunj.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to say is that proprietors can control the number of people they let into the bar, but not how much they smoke. This makes it impossible to stick to a certain ppb of particulates, unless the owners keep the numbers down to a level that they could not possibly produce enough smoke. This means he is almost always way under the maximum.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Keep a supply of plastic tickets at the bar. Before someone can light up, they need to request one either from an employee or another smoker who is currently not smoking. Not only does it solve the problem, it will also help the smokers get laid!

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Read this person making a series of grievances out of smokers complying with indoor smoking bans, and despair. I certainly did. My emergency plan at this point is to give up and relocate to Tijuana.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

They disappear to have a fag before things like meetings or presentations or reviews, so that you can never find them to discuss last minute details, and then they disappear afterwards so that you can't discuss how things went.

Bullshit! You could do those things easily, you'd just have to--gasp!--step outside with them.

Of course, the whole list is like that.