Saturday, March 31st, 2007,
by Fred (,
freedom, General Assembly, politics, restaurants, smoking, Tim Kaine
,
Gov. Kaine has proposed amendments to the Assembly’s kind of pointless post-a-sign-if-you-allow-smoking bill that would ban smoking in any public place where food is served. Unlike most who push these smoking bills, Kaine at least acknowledges the obvious - these laws hurt business:
A conversation with the owner of a prominent Richmond restaurant persuaded Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to seek a legislative ban on smoking in all eateries.”‘I’d like to go no smoking for my employees, but I worry if I do, I’ll lose business’” Kaine quoted the owner, whom he did not name. The restaurateur urged Kaine to apply a ban to all eating establishments.
“I thought that was a fairly compelling insight,” the governor said.
So why did the governor propose the law? A variation of the protect-the-children rationale used to support all nanny state laws, of course.
He proposed the sweeping prohibition to the General Assembly primarily to protect restaurant workers, not customers.
Despite the documented dangers of second-hand smoke to customers, Kaine emphasized, they can choose a nonsmoking restaurant or stay at home and eat.
But it’s not as easy for workers to find other jobs, he explained.
This argument is a big, fat, stinking, moldy-under-the-gills red herring. Here’s a thought experiment - if a restaurant agreed to hire only smokers, would smoking then be OK? After all, surely first-hand smoke is more dangerous than second-hand smoke is. These workers don’t need protection, so smoking should be OK, right? Of course not, since these laws are all about the government telling you what is good for you and restricting what private property owners allow on their property.
This non-smoker hates cigarette smoke as much as anybody. I’d love it if I woke up tomorrow and all restaurants were smoke free. I’d also love it if people didn’t yak on their cell phones while driving, didn’t wear those stupid Bluetooth headsets at the grocery store, didn’t stink up elevators with bad cologne and didn’t wear stupid-looking topical print shirts. But I don’t ask the government to ban any of those things on my behalf. Non-smokers don’t have a right to a smoke-free restaurant any more than smokers have a right to smoke. Private property owners, however, do have a right to control what legal activity is allowed on their property, free from government interference.
So what’s the solution? As with all things, the market. Don’t want cigarette smoke with your smoked turkey? Patronize the many, many restaurants that are already smoke-free. Business owners will get the message. Don’t want to work somewhere where smoking is permitted? Get a different job (and despite what the governor says, there are other jobs). When workers for non-smoke-free restaurants become more scarce, business owners will have to pay more, increasing the economic pressure to go smoke-free. Customers don’t have the right to use the power of the state to remake businesses into what they want them to be. They do have the power to take their money elsewhere.
Hopefully the General Assembly will vote down the governor’s nanny state amendment.
Share This
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Kirkwood, Missouri, nanny state, politics, smoking
,
Kirkwood residents who think Citizens for a Smoke-Free Kirkwood’s proposed smoking ban will have no lasting economic effect better think again.
Restaurants in Ballwin, which in January banned smoking in public places, are suffering adverse economic effects, a survey by the chair of the Kirkwood Special Business District board has concluded.David McArthur, chairman of the Kirkwood Junction Special Business District Advisory Commission, said he visited seven restaurants along Manchester Road March 30 and conducted an impartial survey.
“Six of the seven reported losses in the bar of 35 to 50 percent,” McArthur told the Kirkwood City Council April 6. “The one exception, Mi Lupita, is a small restaurant with a six-seat bar area that likes the ban because it increased his non-smoking seating table capacity by five tables in the bar area. Restaurants like Longhorn Steakhouse reported bar losses of over 50 percent. No increase in restaurant sales and they now close an hour earlier every day. Also, one bar and two restaurants have closed since the ban.”
State and county-wide bans are bad enough, as they interfere with the right of a business owner to decide what legal activities are permissible on his property. Local bans like the one proposed for Kirkwood are just economic suicide, as smokers will just choose to go to a neighboring community that values freedom more highly. And it’s not like non-smokers are deprived of smoke-free environments - 16 of the 25 restaurants in the Kirkwood SBD are already smoke-free.
A city should like Kirkwood should be especially careful when considering business-killing ordinances. Kirkwood relies heavily on sales and gross receipts taxes; the General Fund receives no revenue from property taxes. In 2005, Kirkwood took in $4.1 million in sales tax revenue and $3.2 million in utility gross receipts tax revenue. General Fund expenditures were $15.9 million. Any business lost to the smoking ban would have a serious impact on sales and utility gross receipts tax revenue, and the Mayor is relying on an increase in the sales tax rate to fund some of his proposed $2 million in new spending.
Share This
Thursday, March 30th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Ballwin, government, nanny state, smoking, St. Louis
,
Restaurant owners who have been harmed by the Ballwin smoking ban have banded together with other concerned citizens, vowing to defeat the re-election bids of Aldermen who voted for the ban
Opponents of a smoking ban are hoping to prevent the re-election of three aldermen who voted for the ban.Aldermen banned smoking in restaurants that don’t serve alcohol and other public places last year. On Jan. 2, the ban widened, and fires went out in ashtrays all over town in bars and restaurants serving alcohol.
Some restaurant and other business owners and residents opposed to the smoking ban have formed Concerned Citizens for a Better Ballwin. The group says that business is down at restaurants and that bar and restaurant owners blame the ban.
The targeted Aldermen include Tim Pogue, 1st Ward; Jane Suozzi, 2nd Ward; and Charlie Gatton, 4th Ward.
Elsa Barth, who owns the Seventh Inn Restaurant on Seven Trails Drive in Ballwin, said her sales were down 35 percent under the ban. Alderman Charlie Gatton, on the other hand, says that employees at local restaurants report that the businesses were doing as well if not better under the ban.
The Aldermanic candidates the group is supporting propose to replace the ban with an ordinance requiring businesses to post notices on their doors to say whether they are smoking or nonsmoking facilities. This is essentially the compromise proposal put forth in the District of Columbia during debate over the DC smoking ban. Tobacco abolitionists are unfazed with this appeal to personal choice and responsibility. According to the Post, “Martin Pion, president of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution Inc., said the opponents’ proposal is ‘pure tobacco-industry inspired.’”
There are a lot of non-smokers (like yours truly) who oppose smoking bans, not because we like the smell of smoke or exposure to smoke, but because it should be the exclusive province of property owners and not government to determine whether smoking is allowed. There will always be non-smoking establishments to cater to that market - why can’t there be smoking establishments for that market as well. If a non-smoker doesn’t want to be exposed to the smoke, just go somewhere else.
The last word goes to Concerned Citizens:
Peggy McCain, a spokesman for Concerned Citizens, said business owners, not the government, should decide whether to allow smoking.
“To me, it’s not about smoking or not smoking, it’s about freedom - as a citizen, to go to a smoking or nonsmoking establishment,” she said.
Share This
Monday, March 20th, 2006,
by Fred (,
economics, nanny state, smoking
,
The CDC says that “smoking cost the nation about $92 billion in the form of lost productivity in 1997-2001.” Anti-smoking nannies claim that “secondhand smoke costs the U.S. economy roughly $10 billion a year: $5 billion in estimated medical costs associated with secondhand smoke exposure, and another $4.6 billion in lost wages.” Fast food and overeating? $115 billion. Alcohol? $185 billion. Meat eating? $61 billion according to one bunch of carnivore-haters, or $1 trillion according to one lone psycho. Keept that up, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
How much money? The Register knows.
We come up with a grand total of $7.39 trillion - well in excess of the $6.70 trillion that actually exists. That’s right, when you allow for the basic costs that we’ve all got to put up with, and the inevitable losses to criminals like Ken Lay and Ted Bundy, and then pile on the items that meddling little turds hate to see us enjoying, it all costs more money than there is.
[via the Meddling Little Turd fighters at the Consumerist]
Share This
Friday, March 10th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Calabasas, nanny state, smoking
,
Jacob Sullum had a nice little email exchange with an official from Calabasas, CA, following his Hit and Run post about the “all which is not permitted is forbidden” smoking ordinance, in which the city nogoodnik tried to claim the ordinance did not allow smokers to be jailed, which of course it does:
I wrote back, pointing out that the ordinance says, “A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to chapter 1.16 of this code [which specifies a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine] unless the prosecutor determines to prosecute it as an infraction as authorized by section 1.16.010(a).” Ten hours later, I received this reply:
You are correct regarding the ordinance text. I should have said that the City has publicly maintained that there are no plans to treat violations as misdemeanors. As is true of any violation of the City Code, we have a broad range of remedies, ranging from administrative fines (like parking tickets, which top out at $500), infractions (which also top out at $500), and full-blown misdemeanor prosecution. For the initial period of enforcement, the City only plans on educating people about the ordinance and issuing warnings. In extreme situations, such as repeated and willful violations, a fine may be levied as an infraction.
I guess my point, poorly made in my previous email, was that there are no foreseeable instances where the City would arrest people and put them in jail for smoking under this ordinance. I apologize for any confusion.
So the city’s position is that although it has the authority the put smokers in jail, it will never use that authority. If so, why put it in the ordinance to begin with?
Because they needed to get the ordinance passed. You say you’ll never use the authority, and then pull it out later when the fines don’t have the desired effect. The jail time is only one of the egregious parts of the ordinance, of course. A $500 fine for smoking outdoors is bad too. And not being able to smoke in your own personal automobile. And not being able to smoke outdoors if it is conceivable that another person will be present.
Share This
Wednesday, March 8th, 2006,
by Fred (,
nanny state, politics, smoking
,
David Nicklaus on the AT&T - BS Merger
Ma Bell, of course, was a nickname for the old AT&T, which until 1984 had a monopoly on telephone service in most of the country. By breaking up that monopoly, federal trust-busters unleashed a period of unprecedented competition and innovation in the telecommunications industry.
And, big as the latest deal is, it won’t reduce that competition or stifle that innovation.
No, it won’t stifle innovation. Because the innovation in the telecommunications industry has not come from the Bells, but from the smaller players in the industry. The Bells have resisted at every turn. They were dragged kicking and screaming into the broadband era by CLECs and cable, who offered real options while the Bells were still trying to use ISDN to avoid cannibalizing their lucrative T-1 revenue stream. They attempted through every means possible to block local competition in landlines because they hated to see the cash cows (like selling a 25 cent call waiting circuit for $10) disappear. The big cell networks like Cingular and Verizon Wireless, controlled by the Bells, disable functionality on handsets and cripple wireless broadband through limited availability and exorbitant pricing, in order to protect existing revenue streams.
Reassembling Ma Bell will have no effect on innovation, because the Bells have no reason to introduce new products or services that interfere with revenue from 100-year-old technology. Innovation will come from outsiders, and the Bells will try to crush it.
Share This
