Smoking Law

[Narco]

what is LA recent smoking law?

for retail outlets that sell smoking products i.e. cigars bar that serves alcohol but no food.

it is a retail store, has a "smoke eater" that makes my store smell like a visit to a strip club during the day time..

sinuses are running all day long, thank god our lease is up in 2 months.. but I stuck with the asshat next door. until then..

 

[Phaetos]

Ahhhh ... 50ft from the door of any governmental building. No smoking in restaurants. Not sure about bars.

 

[jeremyws1]

No smoking in restaurants.

The greatest law ever enforced.

Smoking sections in restaurants are like peeing sections in pools.

 

[CajunTim]

Ahhhh ... 50ft from the door of any governmental building. No smoking in restaurants. Not sure about bars.

As far as I believe the smoking ban reads is if more than 50% of your sales is food it is banned. So places like Hooters and other sports bar type places it is banned.

Is this a state or federal law?

I am pretty positive that it is a federal not sure about a state though. I would like to know, when I was on the SGA in college going to state schools I tried to find that law and have it enforced. There is nothing worse then walking out a door into the middle of a group of smokers. Just curious as to the law. Is it any entrance/exit to the building or just the main doors.

Whats the smoking law concerning police and state troopers smoking in their cruisers? Is it allowed? Agency by agency?

 

[LACamper]

I wouldn't mind them smoking so much in restaurants if they'd let me put an open bucket of gasoline on their table first... at least there would be entertainment...

 

[CajunTim]

What happens when a lit cigarette is thrown into a bucket of gasoline?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment
By Robert W. Tracinski
linky
May 26, 2003

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation - from New York City to San Antonio - has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbors. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbors, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behavior.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favorite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.

The tobacco bans are just part of one prong of this assault. Traditionally, the political Right has attempted to override the individual's judgment on spiritual matters: outlawing certain sexual practices, trying to ban sex and violence in entertainment, discouraging divorce.

While the political Left is nominally opposed to this trend - denouncing attempts to "legislate morality" and crusading for the toleration of "alternative lifestyles," - they seek to override the individual's judgment on material matters: imposing controls on business and profit-making, regulating advertising and campaign finance, and now legislating healthy behavior.

But the difference is only one of emphasis; the underlying premise is still anti-freedom and anti-individual-judgment. The tobacco bans bulldoze all the barriers to intrusive regulation, establishing the precedent that the rights of the individual can be violated whenever the local city council decides that the "public good" demands it.

Ayn Rand described the effect of this two-pronged assault on liberty: "The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories--with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington.

The liberals see man as a soul free-wheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread," or, today, when he crosses the street to buy a cigarette.

It doesn't take a new statistical study to show that such an attack on freedom is inimical to human life. No crusade to purge our air of any whiff of tobacco smoke can take precedence over a much more important human requirement: the need for the unbreached protection of individual rights.

Robert Tracinski is a senior editor at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California.

 

[Phaetos]

As far as I believe the smoking ban reads is if more than 50% of your sales is food it is banned. So places like Hooters and other sports bar type places it is banned.

Is this a state or federal law?

I am pretty positive that it is a federal not sure about a state though. I would like to know, when I was on the SGA in college going to state schools I tried to find that law and have it enforced. There is nothing worse then walking out a door into the middle of a group of smokers. Just curious as to the law. Is it any entrance/exit to the building or just the main doors.

Whats the smoking law concerning police and state troopers smoking in their cruisers? Is it allowed? Agency by agency?

State, it was passed last year or the year before. I remember bitching and complaining about it, as I was a smoker at that time. I quit 9 months ago, I don't care now

 

[CajunTim]

What happens when a lit cigarette is thrown into a bucket of gasoline?

Has anybody besides me done this?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

I don't smoke, but I sure as heck care. It is purely a property rights issue. If I own a restaurant, morally it is my decision- and no one else's- whether or not I allow smoking there. No one is forcing you (anyone) to go there. If someone doesn't like it, they have the perfect right to carry their behind up the road to somewhere that doesn't allow smoking. Same thing with any other work place. No one is forcing you to work for me. There is a scarcity of labor in the world- find another job if you don't like it. To say that anyone has the right to force me to disallow smoking on my own property just so someone else who is concerned about second hand smoke can eat/work/be there is despicable. Every citizen who stands by and watches this stuff happen is just as much to blame as the anti-liberty Legislators who voted for it.

Let me say it again- my property is my own. No one else has the right to tell me what I cannot allow on it, as long as I am not infringing on the rights of others. As long as you are free to leave, I am not infringing on your rights by allowing smoking on my property. Using the government to force me to do what you want, just because you think it is better- is shameful.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Has anybody besides me done this?

I have not, but I would bet it just goes out.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

A brief run-down of the current law:

http://www.laborlawyers.com/files/10436_Louisiana Clean Air Law.pdf

 

[jeremyws1]

LouisianaCarry, what about health inspections?

I'm not clean, but I sure as heck care. It is purely a property rights issue. If I own a restaurant, morally it is my decision- and no one else's- whether or not I clean it. No one is forcing you (anyone) to go there. If someone doesn't like it, they have the perfect right to carry their behind up the road to somewhere that cleans. Same thing with any other work place. No one is forcing you to work for me. There is a scarcity of labor in the world- find another job if you don't like it. To say that anyone has the right to force me to clean my own property just so someone else who is concerned about health can eat/work/be there is despicable. Every citizen who stands by and watches this stuff happen is just as much to blame as the anti-liberty Legislators who voted for it.

Let me say it again- my property is my own. No one else has the right to tell me what I cannot do on it, as long as I am not infringing on the rights of others. As long as you are free to leave, I am not infringing on your rights by not cleaning my property. Using the government to force me to do what you want, just because you think it is better- is shameful.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

That is a fair question. Again, we must look at everything through the golden rule of liberty:

I may do what I want, up until the point where I create a genuine intrusion into the the rights of others.

In reference to cleaning, let us ask ourselves: am I creating a demonstrable and unavoidable intrusion of your rights? Is my property simply cluttered? There is no demonstrable harm that I am causing you. At best, there may be a subjective argument that I am adversely affecting the resale value of the surrounding properties. However, that is not a concrete violation of your rights, because all rights are negative ones. Saying I cannot be cluttered is a 'positive right.' That is to say- you have the right to tell me what I cannot do on your property- the [negative/non-permissive] right not to grant me permission to do something to you or yours that I want to do. On the other hand, if you want to come over and tell me what I cannot do with me and mine, that is a positive [not a matter of granting or denying permission, but assuming the ability to choose for others] right, and can only be accomplished by coercion (the use of government/laws, the basis for which flows from the barrel of a gun. An over-simplified example would be: who would have to use force to accomplish their goals?

Me coming to your place and wanting to clutter it-

You say no- I say 'I am going to do it anyway.' I would have to use force to get my way, I am in the wrong.

You coming over to my place and telling me to clean it-

I say no- you tell me I have to clean it anyway. You would have to use force to make me do it. You are in the wrong.

That example is by no means a golden rule, as the debate around property rights and how they are defined is as old as the human race, but the idea is that you have the right to decide for yourself what you want to do. I have the right to decide for myself what I want to do. You do not have the [positive] right to tell me what to do, and I do not have the [positive] right to tell you what to do. We each have the [negative] right to tell each other no if one tries to infringe on the other.

Ok, steering back towards your question:

Am I collecting huge amounts of perishable refuse that is causing an overflow of vermin that are now infesting your property? I have just infringed on your rights, and you do have the right to seek redress. That is a demonstrable and concrete impact.

As to restaurant health inspections, first off, let me say that they are a joke. It just so happens that I have a commercial maintenance company, and I get the calls from eateries in my area that have a 'to do' list from the health dept. These lists are completely inane, almost 100% of the time. OTOH, no one has any concrete checks in place to ensure, for example, that the cooks wash their hands after using the bathroom or handling trash/uncooked meat, etc. My point is, they strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel. This is no surprise, as this is the MO for government agencies.

Ok, as to the morality, I do not think that checks should be mandatory. Before you call me a freak, I think that they are a good idea. Like education, which should not be mandatory, it is something I support. We have a sub-standard government inspection system in place because we have settled for letting them usurp this responsibility. Were they not there, you and I would still want some sort of assurance that the place we ate at was clean, and (in lieu of inspecting each place ourself each time we ate) we would look to private companies to do this for us. Restaurants would want to pay a reputable inspection service with published standards to certify their establishment. We, upon seeing their seal at the entrance, would know that this place has been looked over recently and found to be healthy. Places that did not do this would be subject to the potential loss of revenue from new customers who are not comfortable taking a chance. Word of mouth also plays a part, of course. What we would have would be a much more efficient and useful system, since the inspection companies would be staking their livelihood on the issuance of each certification, and the .gov currently, as a rule, assumes no responsibility for it's actions, in all but the most extreme and provable cases. A private company would go out of business if it treated people like the DMV or others.

Ok, that brings us back to the morality of mandatory health inspections, which I understood to be your question. No, morally, if I want to cook something in a dirty pot and offer it to you to eat, that is my business and yours. If you do not want to eat something from a source you are unsure of (or do not see a third party 'safety endorsement' of), don't eat it. I am not forcing you to buy/eat my food. For a completely different party (read: government/legislators/voters) to interject themselves into our personal, private business transaction and say that I cannot sell you soup because I did not prepare it according to their arbitrary standards has no moral leg to stand on. Such is the nature of our current state of affairs, I agree, but it is not right.

 

[jeremyws1]

Though you take the black or white approach while I take the gray approach, I respect your consistency. There were no right or wrong answers to my question. I just wanted to see where you stand. I can agree to disagree.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Here is a flash animation that some people may find hepful:

The Philosophy of Liberty

 

[CajunTim]

Yes, it does just go out. I think it is a matter of time before the govenrment bans cigarettes. I think they are going to step in and say America since you are too stupid to realize these are harmful to your health they will out law them. Yeah the tobacco industry is a huge poitical supporter so the chances are really slim to done. Has the government stepped in and banned stuff that are harmful to our health before? Sure, they are doing it with Trans fat now. Because in moderation Trans fat or tobacco has no plus side to them, unlike alcohol.

 

[Forrest]

The government has done many things it had no right to do. That doesn't mean it should do more.

The government's ONLY job is to protect you from other people bent on violating your rights, not to protect you from yourself.

 

[LACamper]

Cajun, yes the cigarette goes out, but when the light the lighter the gas fumes will ignite and provide much entertainment.

Another aspect of smoking is the health insurance cost. Smoking causes cancer. Group health insurance rates continue to rise since the rates are underwritten (there's no extra cost for smokers, diabetics, etc like there are in the private market). If you don't believe me, call your favorite insurance agent and get a quote on life or health insurance with both smoking and nonsmoking rates, you'll be amazed. Cancer drugs are insanely expensive (thousands per month!).
With the sudden influx of 20,000,000 immigrants, their eventual citizenship, and their lack of health education (compounded by the fact that they are not being forced to learn English) our health insurance costs are going to skyrocket. The weight of that will be dumped onto the US government. Cutting the number of smokers is the government's attempt to slow the US's inevitable slide in the conditions of 3rd world countries.
Is it an infringement on our rights to ban smoking? Probably. So was the 1968 machine gun ban. So was the banning of concealed weapons (permits shouldn't be needed according to the second ammendment). I could keep going, but I think you get the point... They're going to ban smoking everywhere but in your home eventually. I'd rather not have to pay for the smokers raised rates.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

No one should be obliged to pay for anything for anyone else. Charity is best performed voluntarily.