"No person may smoke tobacco or carry any lighted tobacco product in any public place or place of employment. A violation of this section is a petty offense. ... Any person that owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls a public place or place of employment shall inform persons violating section 1 of this Act of the provisions thereof."
It's short, simple and clear. There is absolutely NOTHING in the law requiring a business to throw people out, call the police, stop serving customers, or remove ashtrays. Any bar or restaurant that does so is doing so OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL in treating smokers thusly. There is nothing to require such.
Print and share the law with bar/restaurant owners and others. Highlight the section showing their actual obligations. They are NOT required to act as unpaid, untrained, uninsured citizen vigilantes!
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Whoops! It's hard to keep up with these things. According to a new story in the UK pub trade publication my figure of 36 pub closures a week is no longer valid.
It has now shot up to FORTY TWO closures a week. It was three per week before their ban.
You might want to bring something to mop up the blood after you explain to the 4,000 ex-pub owners how the ban didn't hurt them.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Cambridge, on the contrary, what *you* don't get is that if an owner allows smoking in their establishment and invites only smokers and those who don't mind a few wisps of smoke to enter, then *you* are the one not showing consideration if you enter and try to make everyone else kowtow to your preference.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
YSU, "All their bar owners initially cried foul in the beginning, but within the first year actually saw their patronage go up"
Interesting YSU. Would you like to explain that to the pub owners over in the UK? During the first year after their ban their pub closure rate shot from 3/week up to 27 per week.
In the second year it's gone to over 36 per week.
I'm sure you could sit down in comfortably in a roomful of the ex-owners and ask them why they all decided to close up their pubs as their patronage was "going up." You could tell them how you have "no sympathy" for them, and then we could all sit back enjoy the ensuing enlightening discussion.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Camrbidge wrote, "I'm curious. How many cigarettes do you smoke per day? " Cambridge, I'm curious. Why do Antismokers always think that asking that question will provide them with some sort of satisfaction? I smoke about a half pack a day. In terms of taxes, I roll my own. Which, thank you, allows me to bring up another rather important poin in this overall discussion.
President Obama has defaulted in a VERY big way on a promise to the poorer part of America.
He has signed the SCHIP bill with a TWO THOUSAND PERCENT tax increase aimed at what is arguably the single poorest large and well-defined minority group in the entire country: those smokers who can't afford to buy cigarettes but who have historically rolled their own from loose tobacco instead.
Even if you're not a smoker, think about the folks you know who smoke: how many of them are hurting enough for money that they roll their own? Nationwide there probably aren't more than a million or two that do so, and while some of them are "elitists" or "guilty tree-huggers" or "smoking activists," most of them are simply too dirt poor to be able to go out and buy packs of Marlboro.
So what does Obama and Congress do to buy Big Tobacco's cooperation in not heavily opposing SCHIP? Simple: hit this poor, almost totally unorganized and defenseless minority group with a 2,134% tax increase so that they'll be pushed into a bracket where they might as well just go out and give Philip Morris their money.
The SCHIP tax increase on cigarettes themselves is wrong: ALL Americans love children and ALL Americans should help with their health care. To say smokers are the ONLY ones who care for children is wrong.
But to then go on and attack a small, voiceless, and helpless minority group with the largest single tax increase in the entire history of America goes beyond wrong: it is morally criminal.
So thank you Cambridge for bringing this point up.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
YSU, if your point was valid you wouldn't see so many bar owners trying to file lawsuits to overturn smoking bans. Do you think that maybe they HATE making more money after bans? And you wouldn't have seen the pub closure rate in the UK shoot up from about 3 per week to over 36 per week in the year after their ban kicked in. That's a thousand percent increase in pub closures. And you wouldn't see post after post on trade industry boards where owners keep asking "Where are all the nonsmokers they promised us?"
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. To see a brief, one-sided, but honest and accurate examination of those lies go to:
Cambridge wrote, "Yes I think an employer should be allowed to hire only nonsmokers."
Thank you Cambridge. And it naturally follows then that employers must be allowed to hire only smokers. Since the rational basis of the law was predicated upon protecting nonsmoking employees, such an employer would be able to allow smoking ... which would pretty much make most reasonable people happy.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" P.S. I wouldn't dissect those lungs too quickly. You are aware I hope that the organ donation folks declared several years ago that smokers' lungs, even those of smokers who had smoked for 20 years or more, were considered quite healthy enough to be used for organ transplants.
Cambridge wrote, "I "get it" also. You want to be able to smoke anywhere you want and other peoples health and comfort be damned."
Cambridge, if visit my web pages (try starting at http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com ) you'll easily find tens of thousands of words I have written over the past few years since the publication of Brains. I defy you to find a single instance where I advocated that smokers should be able to smoke anywhere they want.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
So Cambridge, do you think an employer should be allowed to hire only nonsmokers? That's become more common in recent years as antismoking groups like ASH have encouraged such policies you know.
By the same token the employer should have the right to hire only smokers. Once he/she has done that, then the basis for the ban in that place of employment, "the protection of the workers" is out the window. Patrons have the free choice not to go someplace else if they want... the law is based on employee protection.
Although actually, in Ohio, the law exempts family owned-businesses and private clubs, right? At least that's what the voters voted for.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Cambridge, the point I "got" was that "the law is the law" is being specifically ignored, with approval, by the federal government. Unless you're trying to claim there is no federal law governing marijuana. Are you saying individual states would be free to legalize it completely?
If not, then the principle holds: If we're going to enforce a bad or unpopular law simply on the basis of "The law is the law." then the standard should apply across the board, and any executive officer, whether President or Attorney General, who does NOT fulfill their duty to enforce the law as bound by their oaths of office should be removed from their office.
Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Tinkering with smoking ban
Know what South Dakota's law actually REQUIRES!
"No person may smoke tobacco or carry any lighted tobacco product in any public place or place of employment. A violation of this section is a petty offense. ... Any person that owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls a public place or place of employment shall inform persons violating section 1 of this Act of the provisions thereof."
READ THE LAW itself at:
legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2009/SessionLaws/DisplayChapter.aspx?Chapter=171
It's short, simple and clear. There is absolutely NOTHING in the law requiring a business to throw people out, call the police, stop serving customers, or remove ashtrays. Any bar or restaurant that does so is doing so OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL in treating smokers thusly. There is nothing to require such.
Print and share the law with bar/restaurant owners and others. Highlight the section showing their actual obligations. They are NOT required to act as unpaid, untrained, uninsured citizen vigilantes!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
January 1, 2011 at 12:18 a.m. permalink suggest removal
No-smoking crackdown fires up some bar owners
Whoops! It's hard to keep up with these things. According to a new story in the UK pub trade publication my figure of 36 pub closures a week is no longer valid.
It has now shot up to FORTY TWO closures a week. It was three per week before their ban.
You might want to bring something to mop up the blood after you explain to the 4,000 ex-pub owners how the ban didn't hurt them.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 15, 2009 at 2:15 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Enforcement of smoking ban should not come as surprise
Cambridge, on the contrary, what *you* don't get is that if an owner allows smoking in their establishment and invites only smokers and those who don't mind a few wisps of smoke to enter, then *you* are the one not showing consideration if you enter and try to make everyone else kowtow to your preference.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 15, 2009 at 2:11 a.m. permalink suggest removal
No-smoking crackdown fires up some bar owners
YSU, "All their bar owners initially cried foul in the beginning, but within the first year actually saw their patronage go up"
Interesting YSU. Would you like to explain that to the pub owners over in the UK? During the first year after their ban their pub closure rate shot from 3/week up to 27 per week.
In the second year it's gone to over 36 per week.
I'm sure you could sit down in comfortably in a roomful of the ex-owners and ask them why they all decided to close up their pubs as their patronage was "going up." You could tell them how you have "no sympathy" for them, and then we could all sit back enjoy the ensuing enlightening discussion.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 13, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Enforcement of smoking ban should not come as surprise
Camrbidge wrote, "I'm curious. How many cigarettes do you smoke per day? " Cambridge, I'm curious. Why do Antismokers always think that asking that question will provide them with some sort of satisfaction? I smoke about a half pack a day. In terms of taxes, I roll my own. Which, thank you, allows me to bring up another rather important poin in this overall discussion.
President Obama has defaulted in a VERY big way on a promise to the poorer part of America.
He has signed the SCHIP bill with a TWO THOUSAND PERCENT tax increase aimed at what is arguably the single poorest large and well-defined minority group in the entire country: those smokers who can't afford to buy cigarettes but who have historically rolled their own from loose tobacco instead.
Even if you're not a smoker, think about the folks you know who smoke: how many of them are hurting enough for money that they roll their own? Nationwide there probably aren't more than a million or two that do so, and while some of them are "elitists" or "guilty tree-huggers" or "smoking activists," most of them are simply too dirt poor to be able to go out and buy packs of Marlboro.
So what does Obama and Congress do to buy Big Tobacco's cooperation in not heavily opposing SCHIP? Simple: hit this poor, almost totally unorganized and defenseless minority group with a 2,134% tax increase so that they'll be pushed into a bracket where they might as well just go out and give Philip Morris their money.
The SCHIP tax increase on cigarettes themselves is wrong: ALL Americans love children and ALL Americans should help with their health care. To say smokers are the ONLY ones who care for children is wrong.
But to then go on and attack a small, voiceless, and helpless minority group with the largest single tax increase in the entire history of America goes beyond wrong: it is morally criminal.
So thank you Cambridge for bringing this point up.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 13, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Enforcement of smoking ban should not come as surprise
YSU, if your point was valid you wouldn't see so many bar owners trying to file lawsuits to overturn smoking bans. Do you think that maybe they HATE making more money after bans? And you wouldn't have seen the pub closure rate in the UK shoot up from about 3 per week to over 36 per week in the year after their ban kicked in. That's a thousand percent increase in pub closures. And you wouldn't see post after post on trade industry boards where owners keep asking "Where are all the nonsmokers they promised us?"
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. To see a brief, one-sided, but honest and accurate examination of those lies go to:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/2...
and read the "Stiletto" booklet there. If you have any substantive criticisms of it come back here and post them for everyone to see.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 12, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No-smoking crackdown fires up some bar owners
Cambridge wrote, "Yes I think an employer should be allowed to hire only nonsmokers."
Thank you Cambridge. And it naturally follows then that employers must be allowed to hire only smokers. Since the rational basis of the law was predicated upon protecting nonsmoking employees, such an employer would be able to allow smoking ... which would pretty much make most reasonable people happy.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
P.S. I wouldn't dissect those lungs too quickly. You are aware I hope that the organ donation folks declared several years ago that smokers' lungs, even those of smokers who had smoked for 20 years or more, were considered quite healthy enough to be used for organ transplants.
March 10, 2009 at 11 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Enforcement of smoking ban should not come as surprise
Cambridge wrote, "I "get it" also. You want to be able to smoke anywhere you want and other peoples health and comfort be damned."
Cambridge, if visit my web pages (try starting at http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com ) you'll easily find tens of thousands of words I have written over the past few years since the publication of Brains. I defy you to find a single instance where I advocated that smokers should be able to smoke anywhere they want.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 10, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. permalink suggest removal
No-smoking crackdown fires up some bar owners
So Cambridge, do you think an employer should be allowed to hire only nonsmokers? That's become more common in recent years as antismoking groups like ASH have encouraged such policies you know.
By the same token the employer should have the right to hire only smokers. Once he/she has done that, then the basis for the ban in that place of employment, "the protection of the workers" is out the window. Patrons have the free choice not to go someplace else if they want... the law is based on employee protection.
Although actually, in Ohio, the law exempts family owned-businesses and private clubs, right? At least that's what the voters voted for.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 10, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Enforcement of smoking ban should not come as surprise
Cambridge, the point I "got" was that "the law is the law" is being specifically ignored, with approval, by the federal government. Unless you're trying to claim there is no federal law governing marijuana. Are you saying individual states would be free to legalize it completely?
If not, then the principle holds: If we're going to enforce a bad or unpopular law simply on the basis of "The law is the law." then the standard should apply across the board, and any executive officer, whether President or Attorney General, who does NOT fulfill their duty to enforce the law as bound by their oaths of office should be removed from their office.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 10, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. permalink suggest removal