Spokane7
60°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
The Eagle smoking ordinance is a restriction on private property. I think everyone would agree 
that is true. It would prohibit smoking in bars and allow only 20 percent of a hotel’s rooms to go to smokers. (What public policy is served by telling hoteliers in Eagle that they can only rent out 20 percent of their rooms to smokers? And why 20 percent, of all numbers?) In its current form, the Eagle ordinance could also prohibit smoking in an office where the owner has just one employee, even if that business rarely or never sees outside customers. In other words, you can work hard your whole life, buy office space in Eagle, and then be told you’re not allowed to enjoy a legal activity (smoking) on your property if that’s your choice/Wayne Hoffman, Idaho Freedom Foundation. More here.
Question: Do you share Wayne Hoffman’s opinion that government-enforced smoking bans in bars, hotels and even businesses are a violation of personal property rights?
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
JamesBond on March 30 at 2:00 p.m.
I admire his position, but I am less confident on this one, because of the proven effects of second-hand smoke on others. If, however, the government attempted to ban Copenhagen and the like, I would be totally on board.
scootermom on March 30 at 2:03 p.m.
Am I the only one that sees the irony?
Hoffman, and his conservative colleages, want the government out of their business, but are the first to lead the charge to make reproductive decisions for women.
A pharmacist’s “conscience” is worthy of protection, while a woman’s autonomy clearly isn’t.
Cabbage Boy on March 30 at 2:26 p.m.
I hate smoke and the smell, but it is funny how smoking is an acceptable discrimination.
I agree with Bond that the effects of second hand smoke complicate the issue, but smokers would enjoy more rights if they suffering from the Black Plague and walked around spitting on people.
It is hilarious to watch the uber-left freak out over these things and spout off about hymen and uterus’s being public property.
Sisyphus on March 30 at 2:30 p.m.
“spout off about hymen and uterus’s being public property.”—WTF?
scootermom on March 30 at 2:37 p.m.
Idaho legislators treat a woman’s uterus as public property. They take it upon themselves to decide what public good should be served by a uterus, rather than leaving that choice to the woman. They take it upon themselves to make reproductive choices for women. And now, they want to extend the right to make a reproductive choice for another to pharmacists. Everyone gets to decide, except the woman who actually has the uterus.
In that sense, yes, a uterus is public, rather than private property.
toadman on March 30 at 2:41 p.m.
“In that sense, yes, a uterus is public, rather than private property.”
It’s more than a little difficult to walk one’s dog in that particular public space, however.
;-)
I hope my attempts at humor are shedding some light on the absurdity.
Cabbage Boy on March 30 at 2:50 p.m.
It is absurdity Toad. I just love the “Early Feminist Sayings for 200” answers.
As if allowing a pharmacist to follow his conscience forces a woman into, what is the term scooter, “involuntary servitude”. No we should force others to be complicit in our poor decisions because anything else would just be intolerant.
scootermom on March 30 at 2:51 p.m.
Toadman,
When the legislature starts making decisions about what you should or should not do with your reproductive organs, I hope you see the absurdity, and appreciate that the loss of personal autonomy makes your body little more than property of the state.
Aliasjax on March 30 at 2:52 p.m.
For consistency’s sake, scootermom, I hope you extend that logic to drugs and prostitution, for instance.
Just to be clear, a woman’s right to choose is based on the idea that it’s her body and she should be able to decide what is done with it. I agree. The same logic also suggests that women, and men for that matter, should have the same freedom to do with their own bodies what they choose - like selling it for sex and intoxicating it with drugs of their liking. It’s either our bodies or it’s not, and under many circumstances not related to the uterus, our bodies are treated as public property.
toadman on March 30 at 3:01 p.m.
scootermom…I’m with YOU on this. Making your uterus public space is absurd, and makes no sense to me.. hence my attempts at making it humerus. Dark humor is my thing, kind of… be assured, however, when they come for my willie, they’ll be sadly disappointed.
By the same token, I think it absurd to ban smoking in a bar. Why? It’s a BAR! It’s a place to go and get ‘faced and engage in degrading self-destructive behavior. I believe we sometimes need places like this in our world. To be sure, there are different types of bars in the world. Some are uppity and yuppity, and should feel free to ban smoking if they feel their clientele isn’t the smoking type. But, if you’re running a place that is billing itself as a “dive” anyway, you should have the right to let your patrons kill themselves slowly with carcinogens.
Smoking in Hotel rooms is different, IMO, however. It’s only private space for a short time. It’s SHARED private space.
scootermom on March 30 at 3:04 p.m.
Sorry Toadman, sometimes it’s hard to read humor between the lines.
After a shot in a smoky bar, my sense of humor return to normal.
Cabbage Boy on March 30 at 3:42 p.m.
Argh! It is called thread hijacking here in the tubes. Or cross-commenting from some other threads this morning. But I am pretty sure that Scooter said the ID legislature will outlaw cross-commenting soon.
For the record, I thought the bill was about pharmacists and their consciences, not legislating what women should do with their inferior bodies. You do support freedom of conscience don’t you scooter?
WayneH on March 30 at 3:43 p.m.
Why do you always make this personal? Can’t we have different opinions? Or am I evil because I don’t share your opinions? Come on, this is a forum for grown ups to have grown up debates, not throw insults around, OK?
toadman on March 30 at 4:02 p.m.
Chalk up another pet peeve for Cabbage (how’s that for cross posting!)…
;-)
Sisyphus on March 30 at 4:07 p.m.
Sorry Wayne. I didn’t actually want to make this particularly an issue. And seeing as you are here, it was wrong of me to direct a personal remark like that which would normally get deleted. I was really trying to redirect the conversation in humorous way admittedly at your expense.
As for you personally, I’ve listed many of your personal and professional transgressions which are freely available for review on my blog hosted at 43sb which you’re free to look at any time you desire.
DFO on March 30 at 4:12 p.m.
For the record, I just saw the comment — and did delete it.
Cabbage Boy on March 30 at 4:13 p.m.
toadman on March 30 at 4:02 p.m.
“Chalk up another pet peeve for Cabbage (how’s that for cross posting!)…”
Only if it involves girls wrestling in chocolate syrup while discussing sleeveless dresses…
Sisyphus on March 30 at 4:28 p.m.
As far as an infringement of personal property rights, I think that’s a quaint, if not an absolute tin foil hat, argument. Government infringes all the time when its in the public’s interest or there would be no zoning laws, building codes, or health and safety inspections. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue the value of property rights for something as malicious as second hand smoke. Its like arguing the value of the chef jabbing an ice pick in my lung because James Madison decreed it. The Constitution guarantees no deprivation of property ‘without due process of law’ which is precisely what the Eagle City Council was proceeding to do. But good luck with the legal challenge.
Sisyphus on March 30 at 4:33 p.m.
Wayne, are you looking to take over tobacco lobbyist Bill Roden’s clients when he retires this year?
sue on March 30 at 5:48 p.m.
Once again, Idaho spins backward in time. It’s like no one is paying attention. Are they not teaching us to read here, or is there a magnetic field repelling so many away from current events? Smoking bans are put in place to protect workers. Remember the workers? The little guys without a voice in Idaho? Last I heard, there was plenty of gnashing of teeth and judgmentalism towards anyone who couldn’t find a job, or had to take government assistance. So now when someone does find a job, why should they have to work in a toxic environment? Does Wayne think smoking and second hand smoke is healthy? It’s that same small-mindedness that protects pedophiles who want to work at daycares.
Sisyphus on March 30 at 6:05 p.m.
No Sue, Wayne apparently thinks the workers ARE property, the rights to which must be protected. Its similar to the mindset of Rep. Dick Harwood who wants to assert state sovereignty. I don’t know why we must constantly remind them that we already fought a war on these issues and their side lost. Alas its the price of cutting education.
Evidently all Wayne’s complaints for wanting dialogue on this issue were as empty as his other rhetoric.
Nick_Adams on March 30 at 6:29 p.m.
My favorite saloon in Boise went smoke-free a little over a year ago. Initially, I was disappointed, but have gotten used to it and actually enjoy it because I have friends who won’t go to bars where smoking is allowed, so it’s a place we can all enjoy. I don’t mind stepping outside for a smoke. In fact, sometimes it’s kind of nice when the weather is decent and you can meet some interesting folks on the street.
That said, I’m not sure I’d support a city-wide ban. Not for the reasons that WH points out, since I don’t think health concerns are a private-property right, but because there are some places that just wouldn’t be the same without the old-timers who specifically hang out there because they can still light up.
However, if it eventually comes to Boise, I’m sure we’ll all adjust and be the healthier for it.
Escapee on March 30 at 9:20 p.m.
I think smoking should be Banned, I think all smokers should quit now, and I don’t think Cigarettes should even exist. As far as the Body Part referred to in this thread, well, all I can say is, Intellectual Debate Can Certainly Manifest Itself in unusual ways, and with that, I’ll just bow out…
LukeB on March 31 at 8:40 a.m.
WA State is a MUCH more pleasant place to live since the smoking ban.
The only reason I supported it was that it basically is a workers’ safety issue. Secondhand smoke has been proven dangerous and we all deserve a safe work place, so there you have it.