Jacob Grier

Iowa’s statewide smoking ban goes into effect today. It goes even further than I’d realized, banning not only smoking indoors in all bars and restaurants, but also on the patio of any place that prepares food. To allow smoking in its outdoor areas, a restaurant can only serve prepackaged foods like pretzels and frozen pizza. So the state’s smokers are not only forced to go outside, they also have to eat lousy food.

Among the few places smokers can still stay inside are the casino’s, a hypocritical bit of protection for Iowa’s gambling revenues. Bar owners who see their own revenues decline won’t be offered any relief.

Previously:
Iowa’s smoking ban hypocrisy

Is it possible that I’m actually starting to like John Banzhaf? Earlier this week he gave a stirring, if not quite sincere, defense of free enterprise. In a press release issued on Wednesday, his Action on Smoking and Health organization confirmed the warnings of civil libertarians that the anti-smoking movement wouldn’t stop with allegedly reasonable workplace restrictions:

A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling.

This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers’ movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars…

Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective — and virtually the least expensive — way to help smokers quit, it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers’ health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.

I’ve suggested before that despite all the recent victories for the anti-smoking lobby, its increasingly untenable claims and restrictive proposals will open the door to blowback. Kudos to Banzhaf for helping to make my prediction a reality!

Physician Michael Siegel, with whom I disagree about workplace smoking bans but respect for his conscience and devotion to sound science, also thinks that this is a bad day for tobacco control advocates:

I must also say that ASH is making the pronouncements of smoking ban opponents look good. Many years ago, when I was lobbying for smoke-free workplace laws, opponents of these laws argued that this was just the first step: workplaces were the first step and eventually we [the antis] would be trying to get smoking banned in the home. I countered these arguments by stating no - you’re wrong - we are going to stop after getting smoking banned in the workplace. Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong and the smoking ban opponents were correct. Thanks to ASH, all those smoking ban opponents can now say “I told you so.”

Read his entire post here.

Previously:
Please do smoke, if you like
A malodorous anniversary

“Nobody has the right to any particular job. Under our free enterprise system, employers — rather than bureaucrats — determine the conditions of employment, and employees who want a job must accept the conditions.

The only major exception is that basing decisions on factors like race, national origin, gender, disability, etc. are prohibited since these are fixed conditions and don’t adversely affect the employer. Smoking is an activity rather than an immutable condition, and each smoking worker seriously affects the employer’s bottom line.”

That’s John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), explaining why employers ought to have the right to fire smokers. Banzhaf, of course, has been a leading proponent of forbidding restaurant and bar owners from setting their own in-house smoking policies. I’m sure the inconsistency is lost on him.

[Hat tip: Michael Siegel.]

Previously:
Smoking ban unfair, insulting
The magic of politics

Apparently the smoking ban in New South Wales is turning away more casino business than the government anticipated, leading to a shortfall of tax revenue:

Clubs alone have lost about $400 million in revenue over the last 12 months, largely because of drops in poker machine revenue.

Comparisons between budget statements 2007-08 and 2008-09 reveal Treasury estimated they would receive $1061 million in pokie taxes, but instead received $1006 million - a shortfall of $55 million.

The latest budget shows that Treasury does not expect clubs and hotels to pick up again until 2010-11.

By comparison, Star City - where smoking is still permitted in the high rollers’ room - collected about $8 million more in pokie revenue than predicted in this year’s budget.

This is exactly why here in the US we have Iowa hypocritically exempting casinos from its new smoking ban, with Michigan possibly poised to do the same. When smoking dependent businesses lose revenue, well that’s just too bad. But when the state risks losing taxes, it’s happy to give itself a competitive advantage.

I was able to stop by the raw milk rally today after all. It was a small but enthusiastic group of people dedicated to defending the rights of consumers and farmers to exchange a natural product despite the government’s warnings of its dangers. It was a fun event and it was a pleasure meeting the people involved in this “raw milk rebellion.” Plus I got to enjoy another small taste of Hedgebrook Farm’s fresh, tasty milk.

One of the women there, happy to hear that I’d just written an article in favor of legalizing raw milk sales, asked me what other topics I cover. “I write often about the rights of smokers to enjoy tobacco,” I replied.

“Oh,” she said, suddenly dubious. “I used to know a tobacco farmer, and I understand that it’s his livelihood, but that’s a tough thing to support…”

Consistency is a rare thing.

Not here, in Germany, where the nation’s smoking ban has been undermined by intransigent smokers, rebellious bar owners, and state-level exceptions:

Bars in Berlin have been granted a reprieve, restaurants in Bavaria have found a loophole by converting to private clubs and the state’s famed Oktoberfest will for now remain a smoking zone.

That decision was taken by Bavarian premier Guenther Beckstein, who is due to fight state elections during the world’s biggest beer festival this year and openly worries that the ban will cost his conservatives votes.

In three other German states courts have watered down the new tobacco laws, ruling that in smaller pubs sparking up is legal again.

“The smoking ban is a failure,” said Siggi Ermer, the chairman of the country’s biggest anti-tobacco lobby, Pro Rauchfrei.

It’s nice to have allies!

On its last day in session, the Alabama Senate was bogged down in filibusters. That’s good news for smokers, who will retain their freedom to inhale in private businesses. Not so good for gourmet beer drinkers, who will have to keep on waiting for the higher alcohol brews they’re currently denied.

My op/ed yesterday generated nearly 200 comments on the Free Press website and brought a lot of email my way. Reading over the feedback, I’m struck by how many people fail to grasp a simple point: the fact that long-term exposure to secondhand smoke is risky does not lead automatically to the conclusion that we ought to ban smoking. Instead we could let the market take its course or we could provide other incentives such as tax breaks to increase the number of smokefree businesses. Unfortunately, even suggesting moderate measures that respect the rights of smokers brings in hate mail like this:

Jacob,

It is unfortunate that you and your fellow “butt” heads find tobacco “aromatic and enjoyable.” You represent the selfish and smelly “ash” holes that pollute the air that we all inhale. We non-smokers are tired of self centered, miscreant pigs blowing carcinogens in our faces. You better get accustomed to having your habit extinguished in more and more states, as science, and civilization advances forward. Through the rule of law, and attrition from cancer, rude and foul smelling puffers, such as your self are gradually becoming extinct. Why don’t you move to where smoking is on the increase, like to a third world country, and smoke your black and nasty lungs out. Since you cannot support your position with any solid research, may I suggest you keep your biased and antiquated opinions to yourself. By the way, you are a poor writer, you might wish to take a remedial writing course or two.

Enjoy your bouts with emphysema, heart disease, and eventually cancer.

Not all of the opposing writers have been that hateful in tone, but they almost all miss this simple point. Thankfully, a few people get it:

Dear Mr. Grier,

Not long ago, Holland, which is where we live, appeared at the top of a list of Michigan cities in the number of smoke-free dining and entertainment options available. We’ve been here for all the sorting-out involved and it’s been handled admirably without the force of law. In virtually every case, bars and restaurants have come down in a place that makes sense for their function, clientele, owners, and location. No anti-smoking legislation could have made it work better.

Then there’s this: tobacco use is still legal. And we are still adults! Thanks so much for your column, and for writing it so well that it actually got into print.

I’m in the Detroit Free Press today making the case against Michigan’s proposed statewide smoking ban.

Previous smoking ban writing available here.

It’s not uncommon for business owners to look for creative ways to get around smoking bans. Remember Minnesota’s theater nights? What is unusual is a judge advising an offender on how to find a loophole:

That’s what put [bar owner Frank] Schnarrs in court last Friday. Thurston County said he was breaking the state law which bars smoking in public places. But judge Richard Hicks surprised everyone by suggesting there was a way to get around the smoking ban.

“Maybe if you had a membership, private club, and charged something more than the cost of food and drink to be a member, you could get around it that way,” Hicks said from the bench.

So Frankie’s second floor bar turned private with a yearly membership fee.

It’s unclear yet if the plan will work and Schnarrs faces jail time if it doesn’t. Here’s hoping he pulls it off.

[Via Cigar Jack.]

The good news: Pennsylvania’s legislature ground to a halt today in their attempts to pass a statewide smoking ban.

The bad news: It failed because it wasn’t strict enough and would have taken precedent over the more restrictive ban already in effect in Philadelphia.

I don’t have a clear opinion on whether these kinds of laws should be passed locally or on a state level, but I am very glad to be living in a Virginia, a state that actually bans smoking bans.

Previously:
Your Grand Old Party…

Here’s a story that combines anti-smoking nannies with overly zealous zoning enforcers in Eugene, OR, a town that up until now I had only good thoughts about:

The city of Eugene has fined the Horsehead bar $12,960 dollars for a row of arborvitae in the bar’s outdoor smoking area. The city’s smoking ordinance mandates that at least 75 percent of a smoking area be open to outdoor air, and, according to the city planning commission, that row of plants constituted a wall, violating the ordinance.

The owners of the Horsehead are understandably pissed, especially since they already spent $10,000 tearing down the old fence that used to enclose the area in an attempt to conform to the 2005 smoking ordinance. The new row of arborvitae was supposed to allow air to circulate and give patrons privacy from downtown Eugene’s omnipresent street kids and hobos.

That’s from the Oregon Commentator; the Register-Guard has the rest of the story. Though the bar owner knew he faced a potential fine from the council, he deserves credit for bringing attention to these increasingly stupid laws.

This is depressing: Foreign Policy rounds up a list of the next countries likely to implement national smoking bans. Costa Rica, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, and China are all on the list. It does note that Germany, at least, is backing away from its ban, so the trend isn’t entirely in one direction.

Regardless of your personal preferences, where do you see the future of smoking regulation in the US? Have we reached a tipping point that will inevitably make smoking socially unacceptable? Or will the increasingly untenable and bizarre claims made by anti-smoking groups propel the movement over the shark, allowing smokers and property rights defenders to push back?

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that, regardless of legal changes, old-fashioned pipe smoking will see a resurgence.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section.

[Via TMN.]

The justification for smoking bans, to the extent that there is one, is to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Thus many bans at least make allowances for establishments where smoking is part of the business. Yet a bill in New Hampshire that would have allowed bars that get 60% of their income from cigar sales was recently blocked in the legislature. And in Albuquerque, NM, city councilors may amend the city’s ban to forbid smoking even in tobacco shops:

Owners of cigar bars and smoke shops in Albuquerque are fuming over how a city councilor wants to change the city’s smoking ban.

The proposed changes would no longer allow smokers to light up in either type of business.

Larry Monte has owned Monte’s near Louisiana and Meanaul for nearly 35 years. He says if City Councilor Michael Cadigan’s recent proposal becomes law, he’ll lose thousands of dollars in business a year.

“There’s a reason why we do it inside, we don’t want to offend anybody. We take all that into consideration,” he said.

Cadigan said Monte can still allow patrons to smoke, just not inside.

Anyone who goes to a good tobacconist knows that the appeal isn’t just in the selection of cigars, but in the community that develops among employees and customers chatting and smoking. Extending bans to businesses explicitly built around tobacco isn’t remotely a public health measure; it’s further mission creep by anti-smoking lobbyists who want to snuff out an unpopular way of life.

California is considering a new law that protects the right of apartment owners to restrict smoking in rental units:

Sen. Alex Padilla says his bill would ensure that owners of rental housing have the option to ban smoking.

“The way the law is (currently) written…, it’s not explicit for landlords to declare smoke-free housing units without being sued,” he said. “We’re trying to make the law a little more clear, a little more explicit.”

The bill, scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would allow landlords to ban smoking on all or a portion of their property, including in any building on the site.

Tenants could continue to smoke inside their homes until their pre-smoking ban rental agreements expired. A violation would be considered a breach of the agreement and could lead to eviction.

I suspect that, given inflated fears over secondhand smoke and the contemporary anti-tobacco mindset, there is a good chance that an excessive number of apartment buildings will go smokefree and have a hard time reversing their decision when the current hysteria is over. However, I support the right of people to form smokefree communities, and of landlords to provide spaces for them. Allowing smoking is not very different from allowing dogs or cats. If existing law is unclear on this point, the proposed change sounds like a useful clarification.

When even The New York Times concedes it, it must be true:

In Minnesota, which adopted a statewide ban on smoking in all indoor workplaces in October, revenue from all charity gambling dropped nearly 13 percent in the last quarter of 2007, compared to the same quarter the year before, according to state officials. More than half of the drop — the equivalent of about $100 million annually — was attributed to the new law, they said.

Charlie Lindstrom, who runs the bingo nights at an American Legion post in Fergus Falls, Minn., said some of his former customers now drove to casinos on Indian reservations, where they can puff away, or across the border to Fargo, N.D., where veterans’ organizations are exempt from that state’s smoking ban.

On a good night, Mr. Lindstrom said, bingo at the post used to attract 50 to 75 players. Nowadays it is more like 30 or 40.