Pushing Back on Bans

[TommyBB]

There are towns, cities, counties (parishes) and even states, where extreme tobacco bans are proving to be less popular than expected. Over in the Stupid Bans thread, we see that Long Beach, California is sixteen years into its ban, and the city council is now realizing that they're marginalizing cigar and hookah smokers and have proposed to roll back the ban in tobacco shops.

Now, New Hampshire is realizing a similar predicament. An editorial in the Union Leader urges the legislature to approve a bill that would allow tobacconists to obtain liquor licenses so smokers can have a place to get a drink when they smoke.

Looking to recuperate losses and bring smokers inside from the cold, the New Hampshire legislature is exploring the idea of allowing tobacconists to obtain liquor licenses and become cigar bars. This would allow smokers to have places where they can partake of both cigars and libations. Read more...

The original article has a comments section. Most recent comments are at the top. Go add your voices in support of this excellent compromise.

[gui_tarzan]

This argument by the anti-smokers is the most specious and maddening to me:

"Non-smokers are hurt by second hand smoke in establishments that allow smoking"

I don't know of any tobacco shop employee that doesn't smoke at least a little. There may be some but they obviously like the smell or enjoy smoking or they wouldn't be there. The solution is painfully obvious - DON'T GO THERE IF YOU'RE A NON-SMOKER!!!

[TommyBB]

I'm having a discussion on this right now on TigerDroppings.com
that's an LSU Tigers oriented board. They're discussing a bar in Baton Rouge that may begin allowing smoking. The thread has gone seven pages now, I posted some from the Cigars and Health section here under Resources.

[TommyBB]

The Oklahoma Senate is unwilling to strike down exemptions to 2003 statewide ban.
CW News entry

[carmine7075]

Whats with all the repubs in Ok trying to expand the ban?

[TommyBB]

Op-ed from OK

Burn ban

Wednesday, February 18, 2009
By Chris Smith

The Oklahoma Legislature is once again taking up the issue of smoking in public places. State Sen. David Myers, R-Ponca City, has authored a bill that would ban smoking in most every bar and restaurant in Oklahoma. This comes just a short time after the 2003 state law went into effect banning smoking in restaurants and bars on the basis of their food revenue. At what point will Republicans say enough is enough when it comes to government intrusion into private commerce?

Restaurant and bar owners were faced with the decision in 2003 to invest in separately ventilated areas for smokers, or commit to serving food and beverages without a smoking option. Some of the more venerated local establishments such as Junior’s, Ranch Steakhouse and Cattlemen’s Steakhouse made the decision to invest in separate smoking facilities for their patrons, while others did not. From the looks of things, it doesn’t appear they have any desire to tear those new walls down. Congratulations, capitalism.

Now enter the Legislature.

Why is the party of free markets, private commerce and individual freedoms proposing this bill? Some suggest that it’s a public health issue, yet those same legislators just voted down a proposal to help children with autism. I’ve heard that it’s in the best interest of the employees, yet I’m sure those who make that argument have never asked a cocktail waitress if they mind working in the bar.

Is it an economic development issue? Just the opposite. I recently read that some states and municipalities that have a comprehensive smoking ban are now debating rolling back such regulations in the interest of economic development.

I must now ask the question: Who are they to tell anyone what they can or can’t do with their own property? The local establishments that chose to go with the smoking option took the risk of investment, and that investment paid off. Now some in this Legislature want to pull the rug out from under them.

This issue goes beyond simply “smoking” or “nonsmoking” sections in a restaurant. It speaks to the principles of conservatism that suggest the individual should be free to choose their course, whether it be to enjoy a fine cigar or to allow one’s patrons to do the same. And at what point does the state stop making our decisions for us? I fully expect that the next proposal in the name of public health to be something to do with our dining options. After the cigar has been banned, what’s next? The chicken-fried steak?

I fully expect the Legislature to do the right thing when it comes to this new proposal for a number of reasons. First, the current law achieves its purpose and strikes an appropriate chord with those wishing to dine in a smoke-free environment and those wishing to enjoy an after-dinner smoke. And secondly, and maybe even more importantly, I have faith in those legislators whom I personally know to occasionally enjoy a good cigar. Besides, can you imagine a state representative voting against the interests of Junior’s, the Ranch or Cattlemen’s? Where would they eat?

Smith is an attorney living in Oklahoma City.

There is a comments section.
OK Gazette Entry

[TommyBB]

South Dakota Ban will go through with two exemptions.
Both places were already cigar bars on January 1, 2009, no new cigar bars will be allowed, or, at least, no existing bars will be allowed to reinvent as cigar bars.

CW News Entry
Click through to leave comments

[tonycsmoke]

South Dakota I thought was pretty safe - surprised that the ban actually went through and is as strong as it is.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by tonycsmoke

South Dakota I thought was pretty safe - surprised that the ban actually went through and is as strong as it is.

No place is safe.
They do this shit under cover of darkness, with junk science and the socialist media to protect them.

[TommyBB]

I thought so, as well, Tony. Language in the story makes me think that they'll revisit the issue if business falls off too badly.