Health officials predict there may be smoking bans in every state by 2020

Health officials predict there may be smoking bans in every state by 2020, if trend continues

Mike Stobbe
Associated Press
April 21, 2011

ATLANTA - By 2020, every state may have bans on smoking in restaurants, bars and the workplace, federal health officials predicted Thursday, based on the current pace of adopting anti-smoking laws.

The number of states with comprehensive indoor smoking bans went from zero in 2000 to 26 in 2010.

"It is by no means a foregone conclusion that we'll get there by 2020," said Dr. Tim McAfee, director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health.

But the success of the smoking ban movement has been astounding, and seems to be accelerating, he added. "I'm relatively bullish we'll at least get close to that number."

Nearly half of U.S. residents are covered by comprehensive state or local indoor smoking bans, the CDC estimated, in a new report.

Another 10 states have laws than ban smoking in workplaces, bans or restaurants, but not in all three venues.

Some other states have less restrictive laws, like requiring smoking areas with separate ventilation.

Only seven states have no indoor smoking restrictions, although some of their cities do: Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Gary Nolan, director of a smokers' rights group, said he wouldn't be surprised if the CDC's prediction came true. Public health officials and others have been putting tremendous pressure on bars and businesses to bar smoking, he added.

"It wouldn't surprise me if they prevailed," said Nolan, of the Smoker's Club. "It's just a little bit more liberty slipping away at the hands of big government."

Tobacco smoke is an established cause of lung cancer, heart disease and other maladies, and smoking has been called one of the nation's leading causes of death.

The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

The American Heart Association's chief executive, Nancy Brown, said the CDC report brings good news. But she said advocates have a lot of work ahead of them to make the 2020 prediction come true.

"It's too soon to rest on our laurels," she said, in a prepared statement.

What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. They have no right to tell a business that they can't allow smoking. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty. On the flip side, I have no problem with government property (buildings, land, camps, etc) being regulated.

TexasBlue wrote:What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. They have no right to tell a business that they can't allow smoking. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty. On the flip side, I have no problem with government property (buildings, land, camps, etc) being regulated.

This is just another example of the extra-constitutional intrusions of federal and state governments on our inalienable rights to liberty and property.

Read my siggy... Jefferson was right.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. They have no right to tell a business that they can't allow smoking. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty. On the flip side, I have no problem with government property (buildings, land, camps, etc) being regulated.

This is just another example of the extra-constitutional intrusions of federal and state governments on our inalienable rights to liberty and property.

Read my siggy... Jefferson was right.

Since Minnesota enacted a no smoking law in ALL places of business (restaurants, bars, etc), business has fallen. The local VFW and Irish's (a small bar) have seen revenue drop. The owner of the small bar says he's just keeping his head above water because of it.

Tim Pawlenty signed that bill into law (a Repub Gov) that a Dem legislature passed in 2008. So, it goes to both parties.

TexasBlue wrote:What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty.

What do you think of anti-discrimination laws, e.g. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I mean...if it really is that simple, if the government has no right to intervene in private business ever, for any reason...then you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

You don't oppose the Civil Rights Act...do you?

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty.

What do you think of anti-discrimination laws, e.g. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I mean...if it really is that simple, if the government has no right to intervene in private business ever, for any reason...then you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

You don't oppose the Civil Rights Act...do you?

I can't speak for Tex, but I'm not saying that governments (local, state or in limited cases federal) do not have a valid oversight role in businesses respecting the maintenance of law and order; and certainly refusing service solely based on skin color would be out of bounds as discriminatory. But then, if it's okay for government to tell business owners they cannot discriminate based on skin color, why is okay for government to tell business owners they may discriminate against smokers?

dblboggie wrote:I can't speak for Tex, but I'm not saying that governments (local, state or in limited cases federal) do not have a valid oversight role in businesses respecting the maintenance of law and order; and certainly refusing service solely based on skin color would be out of bounds as discriminatory. But then, if it's okay for government to tell business owners they cannot discriminate based on skin color, why is okay for government to tell business owners they may discriminate against smokers?

(I meant to ask you as well.)

That's easy: it's not smokers that are being discriminated against, it's smoking. Smokers are welcome to eat anywhere! But they can't smoke. Smoking is something you do; your skin color is part of who you are. You can stop smoking; you can't stop being black.

That said: I'm really playing devil's advocate with that answer. I agree that a ban on smoking in all restaurants, and (especially) all bars is over the top. As Tex points out, there are places that have served a heavily smoking clientele for a very long time.

I have a different view, though, on smoking in the workplace. I think non-smokers have a right to earn a living without having to suck down other people's cancer fumes. So I'd probably support legislation banning smoking in non-service industries (probably with various exceptions, but that'd be the gist of it). I'd say workplaces can have designated smoking areas separate from the work areas. No one should ever be required to work in a smoky room. And I have no problem with the government stepping in and telling business owners, 'you can't have cigarette smoke where people are working.'

The reason I bought up the Civil Rights Act wasn't to compare anything--certainly not smokers vs. blacks--but to test the limits of Tex's commitment to governmental non-interference as an absolute, unbreakable principle, and to see if there exceptions to that principle, and if perhaps the application of that principle is selective.

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I can't speak for Tex, but I'm not saying that governments (local, state or in limited cases federal) do not have a valid oversight role in businesses respecting the maintenance of law and order; and certainly refusing service solely based on skin color would be out of bounds as discriminatory. But then, if it's okay for government to tell business owners they cannot discriminate based on skin color, why is okay for government to tell business owners they may discriminate against smokers?

(I meant to ask you as well.)

That's easy: it's not smokers that are being discriminated against, it's smoking. Smokers are welcome to eat anywhere! But they can't smoke. Smoking is something you do; your skin color is part of who you are. You can stop smoking; you can't stop being black.

That said: I'm really playing devil's advocate with that answer. I agree that a ban on smoking in all restaurants, and (especially) all bars is over the top. As Tex points out, there are places that have served a heavily smoking clientele for a very long time.

I have a different view, though, on smoking in the workplace. I think non-smokers have a right to earn a living without having to suck down other people's cancer fumes. So I'd probably support legislation banning smoking in non-service industries (probably with various exceptions, but that'd be the gist of it). I'd say workplaces can have designated smoking areas separate from the work areas. No one should ever be required to work in a smoky room. And I have no problem with the government stepping in and telling business owners, 'you can't have cigarette smoke where people are working.'

The reason I bought up the Civil Rights Act wasn't to compare anything--certainly not smokers vs. blacks--but to test the limits of Tex's commitment to governmental non-interference as an absolute, unbreakable principle, and to see if there exceptions to that principle, and if perhaps the application of that principle is selective.

An excellent devil's advocate position, but I maintain that in private businesses such as bars, clubs, restaurants and similar venues, smoking bans are a form of discrimination. Remember, one can be discriminated against based on religion, but religion is not skin color, and like your observation on smokers, one can change their religion to skirt discriminatory laws. But should have to change their religion, or alter their smoking habits at the whims of governments?

And this could be extended to private-sector workplaces. I believe that the private-sector is more than capable of creating solutions to smoking in the workplace without government intervention. That said, I'm not against bans on smoking in the workplace, even though I am myself a smoker. But I resent the government taking of any liberties. It is not their place to be our nannies on every little thing, and yet that is what they have morphed into. Everything from what kind of car you drive to what kind of toothbrush you can buy is subject to federal regulation. It is far too much!

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty.

What do you think of anti-discrimination laws, e.g. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I mean...if it really is that simple, if the government has no right to intervene in private business ever, for any reason...then you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

You don't oppose the Civil Rights Act...do you?

That was federal law. The smoking issues are state laws.

No, I'm not against civil right legislation.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty.

What do you think of anti-discrimination laws, e.g. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I mean...if it really is that simple, if the government has no right to intervene in private business ever, for any reason...then you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

You don't oppose the Civil Rights Act...do you?

That was federal law. The smoking issues are state laws.

No, I'm not against civil right legislation.

Well, see the part of your quote I bolded. You seemed to be saying you didn't support smoking bans on any level of government.

And I'm not sure I get where you're coming from here. The laws in question are state level laws, so if you think this is a state-by-state issue, I don't see the basis for an objection. Are you saying you wouldn't care about federal-level smoking bans?

And how do you reconcile not opposing civil rights legislation with not thinking the gov't has any business intervening in business? Isn't the Civil Rights Act an infringement on employer's liberty with regard to hiring practices?

dbl, I'm not ignoring you; I'll get to you later.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What it comes down to is this: government, state or fed, has no right or a say in how a private business operates. It's just that simple. It's anti-liberty.

What do you think of anti-discrimination laws, e.g. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I mean...if it really is that simple, if the government has no right to intervene in private business ever, for any reason...then you have to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

You don't oppose the Civil Rights Act...do you?

That was federal law. The smoking issues are state laws.

No, I'm not against civil right legislation.

Well, see the part of your quote I bolded. You seemed to be saying you didn't support smoking bans on any level of government.

And I'm not sure I get where you're coming from here. The laws in question are state level laws, so if you think this is a state-by-state issue, I don't see the basis for an objection. Are you saying you wouldn't care about federal-level smoking bans?

dbl, I'm not ignoring you; I'll get to you later.

I don't support any ban on smoking by the gov't unless it's the feds (or whatever state) saying that you can't smoke on gov't property. That I fully understand. It's no different than a business saying that I can't smoke in their establishment.

As for state-by-state issues, it's just that... states doing it and others not. I don't support it in either fashion. But I will say this; it's IS the states right to pass the laws. I just disagree 100% with it. It's a liberty issue, imo.

Now, if the fed came in and said they're imposing a ban on all property, etc... then I have a very HUGE problem with it. Big time.

dblboggie wrote:An excellent devil's advocate position, but I maintain that in private businesses such as bars, clubs, restaurants and similar venues, smoking bans are a form of discrimination. Remember, one can be discriminated against based on religion, but religion is not skin color, and like your observation on smokers, one can change their religion to skirt discriminatory laws. But should have to change their religion, or alter their smoking habits at the whims of governments?

OK. Smoking is something you do; religion is also something you do. This is true. (I'd submit that people cannot really change their beliefs at will, but then, smoker's can't simply stop smoking at the drop of a hat).

Smoking is something you do that affects the health and well-being of others around you. Religion does not necessarily affect anyone.

I believe that the private-sector is more than capable of creating solutions to smoking in the workplace without government intervention.

If they want to. If they see it as a problem.

That said, I'm not against bans on smoking in the workplace, even though I am myself a smoker.

OK, so we basically agree--though we probably differ as to how we got there.

But I resent the government taking of any liberties. It is not their place to be our nannies on every little thing, and yet that is what they have morphed into. Everything from what kind of car you drive to what kind of toothbrush you can buy is subject to federal regulation. It is far too much!

This would need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I certainly agree that some laws fall into the nanny-state category--for example, Oregon's law (since 1951) prohibiting gas stations form letting customers pump their own gas.

TexasBlue wrote:I don't support any ban on smoking by the gov't unless it's the feds (or whatever state) saying that you can't smoke on gov't property. That I fully understand. It's no different than a business saying that I can't smoke in their establishment.

As for state-by-state issues, it's just that... states doing it and others not. I don't support it in either fashion. But I will say this; it's IS the states right to pass the laws. I just disagree 100% with it. It's a liberty issue, imo.

OK, I see where you're coming from now.

But I still don't see how under this way of thinking, the right to reject black job applicants because you don't like blacks, is not a liberty issue as well.

Really, I think the right to smoke in a workplace and the right to work without sucking down cancer fumes are mutually exclusive, and I will side with the latter. If I'm forced to find a new job because suddenly a bunch of smokers move in and start sharing their cancer with me, my liberty is at stake. I don't think all liberties are equally important. The liberty to keep my job and my health, or some other guy's liberty to smoke? Who's more put out? The guy who has to choose between cancer and quitting his job, or the guy who has to step outside for a smoke? It's a no-brainer.

Now, if the fed came in and said they're imposing a ban on all property, etc... then I have a very HUGE problem with it. Big time.

You mean smoking on all property, or just banning all property? Both are pretty extreme.

kronos wrote:But I still don't see how under this way of thinking, the right to reject black job applicants because you don't like blacks, is not a liberty issue as well.

It's the difference between the feds making civil rights laws so that a natural citizen can vote, work and move freely. The states must abide by that (of course). The smoking thing is a state level issue.

But I know the slippery slope you're talking about. It's comparable but it's not at the same time.

kronos wrote:

Now, if the fed came in and said they're imposing a ban on all property, etc... then I have a very HUGE problem with it. Big time.

You mean smoking on all property, or just banning all property? Both are pretty extreme.

Banning smoking on all property. If the feds decide that we can't smoke anywhere, then it's revolution time. That's an extreme but not impossible either. Even non-smokers would have to stand by smokers if that ever happened because after the gov't takes that right away, there's another right around the corner that's going to be taken from everyone.

It's not impossible because I never thought that we would descend into the shit we have over food. Yes, we have the food police here in the USA. We have the thought police (hate crimes).