Under the auspice of public safety, Michigan is inching forward with its ban on smoking.

If second-hand smoke is in fact a legitimate health risk (I do not believe that it is) to non-smokers, imagine how bad smoking is to the smokers! It’s a freaking epidemic! The real public health issue is “smoking,” not “second-hand smoke.” Nobody should ever be allowed to smoke.

But this choice isn’t yet outlawed, because somewhere deep down inside, most people understand that it is a matter of individual liberty, which most people tacitly recognize. And if you are free to decide whether you want to inhale burning tobacco smoke in the privacy of your own home, you are equally free to decide whether you want to inhale someone else’s tobacco smoke on someone else’s property.

Besides, an increasing number of establishments (most professional buildings, offices, malls, retail spaces, and fast-food restaurants) have gone smoke free. They have done this, at least in part, to gain an advantage over their competition, by offering a different customer experience that some people prefer.

[N]early 5,100 Michigan restaurants and taverns — about one of three — prohibit smoking, an increase of 130% in the last 10 years. He said owners made the switch to accommodate customers.

At the 50-year-old Clawson Steak House, co-owner Jim Alex said his restaurant has changed dramatically in the last two decades, “and I didn’t know we needed a bill to finish this out.”

He said when the steak house first set aside five no-smoking tables in 1987, “it was hard to fill them.” By 2006, the entire 200-seat dining room had become smoke-free, and customers only could light up in the bar.

Now, he said, the 10 booths in the smoking area go begging for customers.

And that’s a key takeaway! Many businesses have gone completely smoke-free in the last 10 or 20 years. The market (or what’s left of one) is delivering smoke free establishments, many places even tout their smoke free-ness as a competitive advantage. If the law forces every restaurant and bar to operate in the same manner and by the same rules, the competitive edge, the differentiation begins to fade.

Case in point: “The Senate ban includes Detroit’s three casinos, plus bingo halls and cigar bars.”

If you own a cigar bar, you’re world is about to be turned upside down. You’ll probably go out of business, and your creditors will take your house and your savings. Your creditors don’t care that your government just bankrupted you by legislation. I imagine that the Casinos won’t be going down without a fight.

Get ready for a shload of money to be wasted lobbying the legislature to craft exceptions to this all-encompassing rule, which would essentially stipulate that the rights of certain proprietors are more inviolate than the rights of others, and that the public health concern for the employees and patrons at these establishments is not really anything with which to be concerned.

A FreePress poll asks, “Should Michigan ban smoking in public places?” and a whopping 70% say “yes.”

Framed improperly, of course, there might be a case. But since all of the properties subject to the ban are private properties, not public places, we can disregard the idea that if a government which respects property rights (which is to say, none of them) would only be permitted to control the public’s behavior on public property: parks, roads, sidewalks. Some people think that smokers should just step outside, but “outside” really is public property!

Look: smoking will always be healthier than fascism, and as usual:

[A]n improper application of the term “public” exacerbates the debate. What anti-smoking advocates want is to rid private places of smokers. When we begin to recognize that your restaurant is your property, we will be able to table the issue permanently. But as long as people continue to delude themselves into thinking that your restaurant is “public” property, smoking, trans fats, nude dancing, beer sales on Sunday mornings, etc., will continue to be banned.

(photo by Dave Carter at the Guelph Mercury)

The last Ontario business owners fighting for property rights over their businesses by allowing smoking on the premesis are being forced to shut down as the Ontario government begins denying business licenses for infringements of the law.

Clubhouse Donuts, a Guelph business that has been defying smoking by-laws since 2000, has been forced to close its doors as the Ontario government revoked its license to do business.

Still, the spirit of its freedom-fighting owner is not broken. She says that she and her patrons will be fighting their convictions by appealing to a higher court once the fines enter the collections phase.

“I think it infringes on private property rights,” said Reid, who has operated the business for 10 years, and watched as its revenues diminished significantly after the smoking laws were introduced. “I think this is an issue about civil rights and civil liberties, and it is a choice that I should have a right to make for myself as a business owner.”

…

Reid said she and her supporters will fight in court the convictions under the local bylaw and Smoke-free Ontario Act charge because they say the smoking laws give the government too much control.

“We see it as the first step in a chain of government control issues,” she said. “And that makes us frightened and that’s why we are taking a stand.”

Unfortunately, not all business owners are as resilient as this woman. The local Windsor heroes sporting these signs shortly after the ban came into effect have since taken them down and their fight for the rights they have over their property has fallen by the wayside. However, these owners still feel strongly about the laws, and I’m told if you get them going, you’re in for one heck of a rant before you can leave their store.

Court challenges are likely the last hope for freedom-fighting Ontario businesses. With the level of brainwashing that’s taken place regarding tobacco products and use I’m less than optimistic, but it’s heartening to see people like Diana Reid standing up for individual rights against all odds.

x-posted to Liberty is Good
h/t: Paul from Blue Blogging Soapbox

Video Blog Episode Two. Thoughts on government smoking bans prompted by a new ban being discussed in Baltimore. Thoughts center upon individual rights and government coercion.

Crashers and friends went to a DC bar to smoke legally for the last time… and then to smoke illegally.

ELSEWHERE: Pan the Ban at To the People

DC's smoking ban went into effect January 2, 2007. A week before the ban, Crasher Mercalic and I went out to see how business owners felt about DC's nanny-state law and how they believed it would affect
their businesses.

Obviously, there was a serious need for the ban, as there were only 123 smoke-free bars and restaurants in DC before the ban. Clearly, this wasn't enough.

Luckily, in nearby Montgomery County, smoking bans are already in effect, so we were provided with case-study material. Business in bars and restaurants reported a 30% drop in business on weekdays and a whopping 50% on weekends. As we all know, such a small loss in revenue is hardly worth fussing over, especially when the benefits are smoke-free lungs and a federally controlled society. Clearly, choice is not the problem, but freedom and prosperity for DC business owners is definitely in jeopardy.

With that in mind, we set out to spread the message that smoking is definitely healthier than fascism.

Trying to find free market support in the overwhelmingly democratic DC is normally almost impossible, but we were met with resounding endorsements. The owner of Lucky Bar immediately put on a "Smoking is Healthier than Fascism" t-shirt and told us it would be good for business - her customers would love it. As the night went on, she continued to serve drinks while clad in her new Crasher tee.

At a couple of dive bars in Adams Morgan, we weren't just supported by the owners, but by the bar patrons as well. When we handed out posters and tees to owners and managers, many people came and asked us for a shirt, a poster or a sticker.

One bouncer wore a sticker for the night and took a handful to hang up all over the city.

We finished the night with a cigarette and a couple pints of Guinness - purchased by a thankful smoker.

I spotted this video showing someone “responding” to government propaganda while rocking a Smoking is Healthier than Fascism tee. Nice work!

Ok crashers, for this contest I'd like for you to help me fight the smoking ban that was just enacted in the nation's capitol. Let freedom ring? Bullshit. Not if you're a smoker. The graphic below was staring me in the face as I read my daily newspaper. Crasher CoffeeCynic made a blank version to make it easier for ya. The winner will get a snazzy revolution in a box that will include a Smoking is Healthier than Fascism tee. Why? Because your Crasher-In-Chief loves you.

Sheesh these people above are tools.

When CEI President Fred Smith and I heard that Playboy’s Miss June 2006, Stephanie Larimore, would be visiting our local J&R Cigar shop we didn’t think twice about stopping by to say hello. Tobacco use is under attack by nanny statists left and right so to thank Stephanie for her appearance to promote Playboy cigars by Don Diego we gave her one of our nifty "Smoking is Healthier than Fascism" T-Shirts. She in return gave us both autographed photographs. On mine she wrote "All My Love, xoxo." Yes you read correctly, Miss June 2006 gave your humble Crasher-in-Chief ALL of her love and put in writing that she wants to both hug and kiss me. Swoon.

Another photo here. 

Dr. Harry Burns claims that a smoking ban in 'Public' Places will 'virtually eradicate lung cancer in 20 years.

"Imagining Scotland with no lung cancer is not trivial speculation.” said the Doctor adding “In the 1960s, one in 100 men died of lung cancer. [...] Today, rates are falling all the time and thanks to the smoking ban, I expect the reduction in deaths to accelerate until dying from the disease becomes a rare occurrence.

"Anecdotal evidence shows that since the smoking ban, there has been a surge in the numbers of smokers seeking help to give up."

Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest) spokesperson Neil Rafferty sees otherwise, accusing the Doctor of painting a completely misleading picture.” Rafferty went on to say “The evidence from other countries shows that smoking bans have no significant effect on smoking rates," he said.

"Secondly, there is no conclusive evidence that lung cancer is caused by second hand smoke.
"We should really expect better of Dr Burns than to go around making such ludicrous claims."

From the Article:

Mr Rafferty said that by claiming such good results from the policy, the public could be misled into entrusting politicians with more power over people's lives.
Well Said Mr. Rafferty, Well Said.

The other day I was sitting in a bar, smoking a much deserved cigarette, when I noticed a "no smoking" sign on the wall. I am a regular at this particular bar and happen to know that smoking is permitted. The bar was clearly preparing for January.

For anyone who hasn’t been keeping up with the news, D.C. is scheduled to ban smoking in bars starting Jan. 1. The ban took effect in restaurants over the summer. This ban is an example of the nanny state flexing her newfound powers.

What, you may ask, is the nanny state? The derogatory term was coined during the Reagan administration and refers to state policies that regulate human behavior in a way that is detrimental to individual rights.

So why have smoking bans been categorized this way? Well, my freedom-loving friend, the state has taken away a choice traditionally reserved by the people - in this case workers, consumers and business owners. As it stands now, these groups in D.C. can still exercise a choice about smoking.

This has resulted in a city where the preferences of both smokers and non-smokers are readily available. In fact, the Smoke Free D.C. Web page has published a list of 123 restaurants and bars in the area that went smoke-free by choice. This list doesn’t even include bars that have a designated smoking area and an area that is smoke-free, such as Wonderland in Columbia Heights. With all these options, everyone should be happy, right? Wrong.

It isn’t enough that non-smokers and smokers have equal rights and that the wants of both are met. The desires of non-smokers should trump the desires and rights of smokers because smoking is unhealthy. The government has invented a new right. You now have the right to be in a smoke-free environment any time you enter a restaurant or bar. Unfortunately, your new "right" directly conflicts with a property owner’s right to allow smoking on their property and consequently with a smoker’s right to patron establishments that cater to their desires.

So the question becomes: How in a country of freedom-loving individuals did such an outrageous legislation gain support? The answer lies in secondhand smoke studies, around which there is a ridiculous amount of controversy. Proponents of the ban have a stack of studies conclusively proving that a single moment of secondhand smoke exposure will kill babies, grandmothers and family pets in gruesome ways. Opponents of the ban have stacks of studies conclusively showing that locking someone in a hole the size of a toy box with 666 chain smokers for 12,000 years will not adversely affect their health in the slightest.

Clearly, the truth lies between these two extremes. However, this is what everyone seems to miss. The number of options available for people who are concerned about how secondhand smoke may affect their health are practically endless. Anyone even mildly concerned with this issue can easily find bars and restaurants that don’t allow smoking, without using government power to legislate a ban.

The ease with which smokers and non-smokers find their restaurants and bars of choice do differ. Smokers are going to have to look a little harder to find restaurants that allow smoking while non-smokers may have to look a bit harder to find appropriate bars. Oh wait, could this possibly be market mechanisms at work? Could it be that, in general, there is a stronger correlation between smoking and drinking than smoking and eating? No, markets couldn’t possibly have worked that out all on their little lonesome!

Oh, but they have.

If we were living in a world where non-smokers were confronted with smoke-filled air in every establishment and on every street corner I would be more sympathetic to their position. As it stands today, however, the ban is less about giving non-smokers a smoke-free option and more about taking all options away from smokers.

First Published in The Eagle 10/30/06