The AJC reports that the DeKalb County Commission “snuffed” an effort to ban smoking in public places throughout the county, including parks, bars and strip clubs. In a 4-2 vote, both dissenting votes to dismissing the ban came from northside commissioners Jeff Rader and Kathie Gannon.
Bar and strip club owners argued that such a ban would hurt their businesses.
Latest from Decaturish
Daydreamer
FM Fats
Robert Butera
gm
Peripatetian
Robert Butera
Robert Butera
J_T
Wacky Sitcom Neighbo…
Steve
Angelo
Just cranky
Rsizzle
theron wasson
Mikelark
What a mistake. Thank you Kathie and Jeff.
Not the governments job to dictate how we do business like this. I can understand a park…its public land built on the public dime. But if Joe’s BBQ or whatever wants to allow smoking let em.
Good call. End the Nanny State!
Phooey. At least publicly-owned spaces should be smoke-free.
Any legislation equating the interests of users of public parks and strip clubs is a failure from the start.
Let’s hope revised legislation is introduced to ban smoking in public places, like parks. And now we know which commissioners got big campaign contributions from the strip club lobby.
Or the freedom lobby….
I practice the black art of smoking (shame, shame), and think that smokers should always take their surroundings into consideration…..Busy sidewalks or parks with families, elderly people, children, people with health issues, etc, are no place to light up. A smoke can wait can wait- I’ve done this all my life, & lived through it with no (well, relatively little) trauma…. We all should be considerate of the people around us.
@LovesDogs, if only your fellow brthren were as considerate as you.
I have enjoyed the Brick Store and other venues around Decatur a gret deal more now that I don’t come home smelling of smoke.
I don’t smoke, but nothing make me want a cigarette more than when my government tells me I can’t have one. I say let consideration and manners dictate our actions.
Yup.
“I say let consideration and manners dictate our actions.”
That sounds great in theory, but humans being what they are…well, let’s just say that if we could count on each other to consistently exercise manners & consideration, there would be very few laws actually on the books.
+1
Smoking should be banned everywhere except for private residences. In areas around the country where smoking has been banned in bars, business in those establishments has not suffered and in many cases, it has increased.
The big plus that nicotine has over heroine is the degree to which it impairs the user is much lower. The big minus is that when a nicotine addict partakes around others, he is giving them a dose of their drug. When smokers start complaining about their rights, police states, 1984, and too much government, I reply like this comment, then I write to an elected official, declaring my support for whatever anti-smoking measure is at issue. The most important right here is the right of non-addicts to nicotine-free air and a decrease in the cost of healthcare (no matter how minuscule it would be) for not paying the cost of treating nicotine addicts.
Arguments about the cost of people eating fatty food, states’ rights, the liberal agenda, etc. are irrelevant.
You certainly do have a right to breath nicotine-free air….by walking out of a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. It’s called freedom. A bar owner should be allowed to make the rules for his establishment and you decide whether or not you want to support that establishment by entering it or not. To say that you have a RIGHT to walk into an establishment and tell the owner that he MUST cater to your views is absolutely mindless.
ooops; I “plussed 1″ Walrus’ comment. Sorry, Walrus; meant to “++1″ AIN’s comment. Smoking around others is NOT a right, I think; inflicting harmful smoke on innocents is not a right, just like taking target practice in your intown backyard with your licensed firearm isn’t. Have had too many relatives who died of smoking-induced cancer or emphysema.
Then don’t go to the bar that allows smoking! I just don’t understand why that is so difficult.
Yeah… we get that you don’t get it.
So explain it to me. Why do you think you/govt. should prevent a bar owner from allowing smoking at his establishment. Why are your “rights” superior to his? Can’t you choose to not enter the bar, thereby avoiding the smoke? It appears to me that you want to be able to go wherever you want on your terms, property rights be damned. So yes, please explain it to me…
++1
Curious to the people who say smoking should be banned everywhere: do you feel similarly about banning cars, particularly SUV’s, which also pollute the air and cause a variety of illnesses to those who breathe their noxious fumes?
The problem with total smoking bans is that it targets one kind of air pollution as “the worst ever in the entire world” while completely ignoring the numerous other noxious, awful fumes we breathe that are bad for us and worse for the environment. It also prevents businesses from doing business the way they want. If a bar wants to allow smoking, it should be allowed to do so. Capitalism ensures that those who don’t like it can go someplace else. God, I never thought I’d be towing the libertarian/capitalist line, but people are way too emotional about smoking.
Do you not think that people working in bars and restaurants deserve the same protections as people working virtually anywhere else, in terms of a smoke-free work environment?
Yes, I do believe that people should not be forced to inhale secondhand smoke. I also believe that I shouldn’t be forced to inhale a whole lot of other things that are bad for me and that I don’t want to inhale. I am torn on the benefits of protecting workers for secondhand smoke, in truth. My real issue the moral superiority with which people discuss smoking– and I say this as a former smoker who has begged and pleaded with many people to quit. It’s not like I’m extolling the virtues of smoking here, and a ban would not affect my habits.
It’s just so interesting to me the absolute outrage people have about smoking, so my comments are addressed to those who get so up in arms about the fact that anyone, anywhere is allowed to smoke. It’s as if the decision not to smoke is the greatest, most righteous decision one could ever make and the decision to smoke signifies complete moral collapse and renders someone the greatest polluter who has ever lived. Neither is true.
I agree a lot of people are sanctimonious in their opposition to smoking, and that it can be aggravating. But plenty of people support the ban under discussion without being the least bit morally superior or emotional about it, starting with me. I also agree that we are forced to inhale a lot of crap that is bad for us, beyond secondhand cigarette smoke. What I don’t understand is how any of that translates, for you, into ambivalence about supporting smoke-free workplaces for everybody. It’s not the bartenders’ fault some people advocate the ban for fallacious reasons; nor should they be punished because Congress tramples clean air policies at every opportunity.
It translates into ambivalence for one simple reason: I think it will give a lot of people license to continue being nasty to smokers and self-righteous about their own decision not to smoke.
The problem with your logic, Walrus, is that before smoking bans were put into place, non-smokers’ options typically were eat at a restaurant with second-hand smoke or eat at home. And before that, non-smokers had to just deal with second-hand smoke in the workplace.
The “Nanny State” comes about when people and businesses create externalities; when individuals and businesses expel waste products into common resources like air and streams. As a result of the harm done down-wind or down-stream, those impacted raise a fuss and get regulations put in place which stops the externalities at their source (the smoker, in this case).
No-smoking regulations aren’t about stepping on your freedom to use a harmful substance to satisfy a harmful addiction. No-smoking regulations are about freedom to access clean air for those of us who don’t smoke and don’t want exposure to said harmful substance (and for children who have little choice in where their parents take them or where a smoker puffs out dirty air).
Restaurant kitchens are regulated to keep restaurant from making their customers ill; are you saying that restaurant employees should have the right to not wash their hands after going to the bathroom or touching another customers used dishes? Coal plants are regulated to reduce acid rain; are you saying it’s the farmer’s problem for living down wind and the coal plant operator should be able to put whatever pollutants they want to in the air? Sewage must be cleaned up before it goes into the river; are you saying that it’s your responsibility to find clean water when the good folks up-river are kind enough to flush directly out into the stream? The obvious answer to all of these should be no. Smoking is the same thing on a smaller scale. I made the choice not to poison myself with nicotine when I quit smoking; I should not have to withdraw from society to avoid cigarette smoke. The person creating the local air pollution, however, has the ability to change where they light up so that their smoke doesn’t affect others.
If you want nicotine outside of your home, you should use some form of smokeless tobacco (don’t spit where I have to step in it and don’t spit into a container through which I can see that nastiness).
Your addiction is your problem, not mine; don’t make it mine through externalities.
Coal plants are regulated to reduce acid rain; are you saying it’s the farmer’s problem for living down wind and the coal plant operator should be able to put whatever pollutants they want to in the air? Sewage must be cleaned up before it goes into the river; are you saying that it’s your responsibility to find clean water when the good folks up-river are kind enough to flush directly out into the stream? The obvious answer to all of these should be no. Smoking is the same thing on a smaller scale.
___________________
Wrong. It is absolutely not the same thing. Polluting water and air, as you mention, is harmful to people without any action on their part. Totally different scenario. With regard to smoking, you can avoid the second hand smoke by not entering the bar/restaurant. You don’t have a RIGHT to not experience second hand smoke in a private business!
Btw, I don’t smoke. I think it is disgusting.
As much as I hate it, I agree. I think this is one of those areas where market forces can work. In the past, smoking was more acceptable, so it was harder to find a non-smoking restaurant. That changed, and not just because of regulations. That said, I do agree with the idea of forcing businesses to choose between allowing minors or allowing smokers.
Reminds me of the classic Steve Martin line,
“Do you mind if I smoke?”
“No, do you mind if I fart?”
Thank god most people have enough sense to keep their gas to themselves and not expect others to deal with it.
If you don’t like that smoking is allowed in particular establishment use your PERSONAL FREEDOM to walk away…just dont go there. It’s not that hard of a concept. Nobody is making you go there. Nobody if forcing you to breathe the air there.
If the City of Decatur/Atlanta/Georgia ever decides to force me, every day, to eat out then we can talk about forcing the establishments to ban smoking…till then…
“If the City of Decatur/Atlanta/Georgia ever decides to force me”
Translates to, “until it actually personally affects me, I don’t care. And to hell with everyone else it does in the meantime” How neighborly.
That is a bit of a stretch…But you are right…people smoking in bars does not affect me. WHY? Because I choose to avoid frequenting those establishments for crying out loud! They do not get my money.
Don’t put words in someone elses mouth…it is rude.
Just calling it like I see it.
It does affect me. There are some places I like to go to but allow smoking. I have to make a choice between not going somewhere I like and going but having to inhale smoke. I would be very happy if the owner of the establishment would make it a no-smoking establishment. But it should be his choice, not you or the govt.
Chris Rock said it best in one of his comedy routines – smoking is a terrible habit, it’s hurts others more than the smoker. I truly believe the ban should exist in parks but allow business owners to decide for themselves.
Cigarettes are completely legal, but we all know that they are TOXIC and not just to those smoking them. That’s just not even up for debate.
Restaurant owners are forced to do lots of things by the government, to keep their patrons safe. This is just another one of those things in my opinion.
I stand by the rights of property owners wholeheartedly, but not blindly or belligerently at all cost. This is a matter of safety, plain and simple.
So should we prevent restaurant owners from serving fried foods? After all, we have to look out for the safety/health of its patrons.
Fried foods do not harm the health of bystanders.
It does if you are a kid and that is all mom and dad feed you…maybe fried food should only be 21 and over!
Absurd.
yes, it is absurd for the govt to dictate what we can and cannot do in a private business in regards to this discussion.
If you are in a bar, are you a “bystander” or a patron? If a patron, then you deal with what you get. Otherwise, there’s the door….
I’m just shocked by this attitude that you have right to enter a bar and have it YOUR way. And if you don’t get it YOUR way, you ask the govt. to make it so.
This is why I am a Libertarian; it’s consistent. Liberals scream about freedom (gay marriage, abortion, medical pot, etc.), but only if they agree with it (no guns and no freedom for business owners though!). Conservatives scream about freedom (my money, govt. out of my life, etc.), but only if they agree with it (no gay marriage, no abortion, no drugs though!). Freedom on your terms….nice.
You’re a bystandeer to smokers and a patron of the bar.
How does my eating a piece of fried chicken affect the health of the person next to me? Or even my health? Is fried anything damaging to the environment? Can it give my spouse cancer if I eat it around them everyday, even if they never ate it a day in their life?
I will support the argument on behalf of property owners almost every time. But just not in this particular case.
Restaurant owners are forced to do lots of things by the government, to keep their patrons safe.
____________________
This was your statement. If they are supposed to keep their patrons safe, then shouldn’t they refrain from serving fried foods to said patrons (I get the whole doesn’t affect the person next to me, that is not my question)?
I walk, bike and jog almost everywhere I go. How is fried chicken dangerous to me? Please elaborate? I can tell you that even you walk, bike and jog everywhere you go, smoke is still deadly to you.
I think these ridiculous exaggerations (banning fried food) really takes away from meaningful debate. There’s really no comparison. Chemicals in cigarette are deadly to smokers, and nonsmokers alike. The smoke doesn’t discriminate, it doesn’t stay in one place, and we all breathe it when it’s in a confined space.
Either you don’t get that second hand smoke can actually be fatal, or you’re so belligerently tied to your beliefs, that your mind is closed even when presented with new information that contradicts your previously held beliefs.
If you want to debate it on a Constitutional level about the rights of property owners then let’s do that. But the ridiculous comparisons are out of place and contribute nothing to your argument.
Have you not read any of my other posts?!! I make one comparison (which everyone else has done) and you jump on me! That is just ridiculous. Yes, I believe second-hand smoke is dangerous. To say I am “belligerently tied to your beliefs, that your mind is closed even when presented with new information that contradicts your previously held beliefs.” is amazing. What new information have I been presented with? IF YOU DON’T WANT TO BE AROUND SMOKE IN A BAR, DON’T GO TO THE BAR THAT ALLOWS SMOKING!! Please respond to that. Tell me why that is not an acceptable solution. That is what I want to know.
I don’t mean to jump on you Walrus, though I do disagree with you.
My response to that is…
Why should other people’s addiction, determine where in society everyone else should be able to go?
This if you don’t like it go somewhere else is just not a responsible answer for something that not only causes illness, but KILLS millions of people a year.
I just see it differently. It is not someone’s addiction that is preventing you from going, it is the business owner’s decisions as to how he wants to run his business that may prevent you from going. And that’s ok, you can’t expect to be happy about how every business owner runs their business. You express yourself by where you spend (or don’t spend) your dollars, not by running down to city hall and asking for them to make the business owner do things your way.
And yes, I would like your Constitutional stance as well.
It really doesn’t say much about what people can and can’t do on your property, just that what’s your is yours.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/
Here’s something I came across. A few interesting *factoids* (just consider the source)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
It’s true that I can choose not to patronize restaurants and bars that allow smoking — and I do. The people who don’t currently have a choice are those who work there. In nearly every other workplace environment, employees are protected from secondhand smoke.
+1
The people who don’t currently have a choice are those who work there.
__________________
Did I not get the memo that we have started indentured servitude again? Those people can go work for a non-smoking bar if they so choose. Also, if I had to guess, 80% of restaurant/bar workers are smokers anyway.
“Those people can go work for a non-smoking bar if they so choose.” — First of all, that’s not a realistic position, especially in this economic climate. Second, why is it fair to put the burden on those employees, when virtually everybody else can depend on their workplace being smoke-free?
“Also, if I had to guess, 80% of restaurant/bar workers are smokers anyway.” — So the rights of the other 20% don’t matter? Interesting viewpoint.
Because they chose to work in that industry. Life is full of decisions.
I didn’t say the 20% don’t matter, it was just an aside.
Life is full of decisions, true, but not everybody has the same array of choices. And wait, before you jump in, I’ll also grant you that a given person’s current choices are in part a consequence of previous decisions. That being said, it still doesn’t make sense to me that bar and restaurant employees are left to fend for themselves when virtually everybody else has reasonable access to smoke-free work environments.
There are two ways a proprietor potentially loses revenue if patrons can’t smoke inside their establishment: from customers choosing to drink/eat elsewhere, and from the time they spend outside smoking instead of inside swilling. If smoking is verboten at competing establishments, the first problem goes away. As for the second, I submit there is additional revenue to be had from patrons who previously avoided the place because of the smoke.
With respect to allowing owners/operators to allow smoking if they want to, on purely ideological grounds, it makes a nice rhetorical horse for self-proclaimed libertarians to ride around on, so long as you don’t consider all of the other things we require employers to do in order to maintain certain standards of health and safety for their workers.
Thoughtful response. Yes, my argument has nothing to do with economics, it is purely a freedom point of view for me. I don’t think ANY business should be told what to do as long as it doesn’t forcefully harm the person or property of another. As a Libertarian, I also have a problem with many of the other regulations/laws that you are probably thinking about.
I’m curious, Walrus. What are some examples of laws that address health/safety in the workplace, that you think should be eliminated because they infringe on employers’ rights?
Give me examples of laws, and I will likely disagree with them.
Regulations to keep coal miners safe from the toxic fumes they are exposed to, would be the best equivalent I can think of, to what we are are discussing.
I was thinking of that example too. Child labor laws would be another.
I wish that self-interest and a civilized, humane community never conflicted but history shows that they do, way too often. Hence moral and legal codes. But the devil is in the details.
Well, no, thank you just the same. I have never operated any kind of retail establishment, so don’t have handy knowledge of specific relevant laws and would have to go do some research. I have neither time nor sufficient interest to run around digging up examples to bring back for your review. You seem to be taking a position that regulation is essentially a bad thing. I’m interested in how you see that playing out in practical, real-life terms, and thought you might have a ready example or two.
I submit there is additional revenue to be had from patrons who previously avoided the place because of the smoke.
__________________
I feel very strongly that this is true. I know that I personally, and dozens of people I know would go out to bars and music venues much more often if they were smoke free.
I certainly believe this is true.
No, workers have a right to work in a hazard-free environment. You can equate second-hand smoke with hazardous chemicals, etc., because they are known carcinogens.
If I made the rules:
Restaurant – no smoking inside or within 50 feet of entrance.
Parks – No smoking in park or within 50 feet of park boundaries.
Schools/Public buildings – No smoking anywhere on the property.
Strip Club/Gambling establishment – ten cigarette minimum.
Live Music Venue – No smoking inside.
If I made the rules you would be free to do what you want as a business owner…
It’s all an ideology difference…I don’t think we are going to change each other’s minds…but thanks for the discourse!
If I made the rules, I would say that is it not up to me to make the rules!
I thought smoking in public places (bars, restaurants, etc.) was already banned in the City of Decatur (a big plus for me btw). Is this blog post different from that, meaning it’s about the entire Dekalb County and not the City of Decatur? Some clarification please, thanks.
Correct. Decatur and DeKalb are each responsible for their respective jurisdictions. Decatur has a no-smoking ordinance while DeKalb, currently, does not.
Man, and those Decatur establishments sure are hurting for business! Just look at the terrible consequences of banning smoking!
why are cigarettes legal anyways, really!
I agree with Steve Martin.