Senate Passes Smoking Ban With More Exceptions
The Colorado Senate passed the no-smoking ban today, but there are more exceptions that proponents of the measure would have liked:
The state Senate gave initial backing to a statewide ban on smoking in public places Monday, but it exempted small neighborhood bars. The exemption covers bars that get less than 25 percent of their profits from food, but it wasn't clear how many would be affected...The Senate also voted to allow smoking in casinos and at racetracks.Opponents are unhappy with the exceptions, and Sen. Dan Grossman said he wouldn't vote for the bill, unless changes are made, which may happen. As for my earlier post about how much authority we want to provide the Government to regulate our bodies, policy analyst James Joyner was in Amsterdam two weeks ago and surveyed the smoking, drug and prostitution scene. He makes this observation:
Yet, when we regulate behaviors we consider vices, we trade substantial freedom for very little gain. ...A policy of social tolerance combined with public education may well be a saner approach.
Comments
Submitted by Kevin Jones (not verified) on Tue, 2006-02-28 12:54.
This isn't about control over bodies, this is about control over private businesses and private property. "Public buildings" have already been redefined to mean just about everything except private residences.
Submitted by Michael (not verified) on Tue, 2006-02-28 12:17.
Actually Ohwilleke, I have exactly the same concern with the 25% rule. They can allow smoking if they sell less food and more drinks.
This would leave food/pub places (I can think of a couple on Broadway) the option of de-emphasizing food in favor of a "mostly drink" approach.
Submitted by ohwilleke (not verified) on Mon, 2006-02-27 23:48.
One of the big objections to exempting neighborhood bars is that it would treat restaurants and bars unequally, causing business to go from restaurants to bars. The % of revenue from food measure would seem to address that concern. It isn't perfect, but the best can be the enemy of the good.
Submitted by Elliot (not verified) on Mon, 2006-02-27 22:48.
James Joyner also makes the following observation:
"this is a case where a minority is able to restrict the freedom of a majority, as even one or two smokers in a small room can make it noxious"
It seems with all the talk about smoking bans infringing on people's "freedoms", critics often forget the freedoms of non-smokers. James nicely sums up the problem with the whole "banning smoking limits freedom" argument -- allowing smoking in public areas & businesses infringes on the freedom of non-smokers to breath clean air and come home from a bar/club without their clothing wreaking of smoke.
Of course, if cigarettes didn't emit smoke, this wouldn't be an issue. Cigarette companies attempted to introduce a smokeless cigarette years ago (a dismal failure). Maybe smoking bans will renew interest in such a product? Do such bans cover "smokeless" products, or are they excluded?
