This is a case of incrementalism most insidious. The last smoking ban, which specifically allowed smoking in bars and certain other types of establishments is now being used as a precedent for the local government to strip away even more rights from business-owners.
If you don't like smoke - go to one of the thousands of non-smoking restaurants!
Soon, there will be no more smoking in homes, on streets, or anywhere. Worse, someone might use *that* law to govern other activity that occurs in the home...
It just keeps creeping until someone stands up and says, "Hell no!"
Here's an email thread where I responded to what looks like an alert about a proposed smoking ban for bars in Dallas, it shows my counterproposal and a business owner's positive response.
Vote for Robert M. Pritchett, Libertarian Candidate for
Texas House of Representatives Dist. 100 - 972-557-6583 http://vote4rmp.org ----- email RMP at Vote4RMP dot org
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "'"Vote 4 RMP"'" ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: Ideal compromise to smoking ban
Thank you, Robert, and I think that's a splendid idea. I don't know of any
business owner who would have a problem with that, as opposed to the
proposed alternative. It would be my wish that the city could take this
approach instead.
Thanks again for your perspective -
Kevin Christensen
Owner
Absinthe Lounge
-----Original Message-----
From: "Vote 4 RMP" [mailto:RMP@Vote4RMP.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:44 PM
To: tom.leppert@dallascityhall.com; elba.garcia@dallascityhall.com;
dwaine.caraway@dallascityhall.com; pauline.medrano@dallascityhall.com;
david.neumann@dallascityhall.com; vonciel.hill@dallascityhall.com;
steven.salazar@dallascityhall.com; carolyn.davis@dallascityhall.com;
tennell.atkins@dallascityhall.com; sheffield.kadane@dallascityhall.com;
jerry.allen@dallascityhall.com; linda.koop@dallascityhall.com;
ron.natinsky@dallascityhall.com; mitchell.rasansky@dallascityhall.com;
angela.hunt@dallascityhall.com; Kevin Christensen
Cc: RMP@Vote4RMP.org
Subject: Ideal compromise to smoking ban
Importance: High
- I think I've figured out the perfect compromise on this issue and
some others - at least it's an idea worth considering. I haven't had
time to present it to the various cities etc. but given this message,
it seems timely to at least reply to here and I'd be interested to see
what y'all think about it. I think that this would be the better
approach, for Dallas and all cities, for restaurants and bars both,
and in fact state wide and even nation wide (although of course it
should not be Federal or perhaps even State law).
In case anyone's curious, I'm slightly handicapped, and I have
Congestive Heart Failure because half of my heart is dead as a result
of 50 years of second hand smoke. And as a part time musician, I'm
frequently exposed to smoke in clubs. Yet because I'm a libertarian, I
have the moral integrity to refuse to use government coercion to force
every business to accomodate me. The free market works much better,
especially when we simply use our brains and work together to create
reasonable and better solutions like this proposal.
The key is to distinguish between Inherent Rights and Presumed Rights.
Inherent Rights are basically the right to be free of force or fraud
per the Non-Aggression Principle as described at http://common-law.net/nap.html and supported by libertarians, this is
the main principle that America was founded upon. Presumed Rights
(maybe a better name would be "Customary Privileges") are
the best way to handle the false "rights" which impose obligations on
other parties but which are usually considered "rights" as a social
custom these days, these are often considered rights especially by
liberals but they need to be distinguished. These would include the
"right" to not be discriminated against in employment, and the
"rights" to handicapped-accessible and smoke-free seating at
restaurants and bars. The way to make this work properly is that these
Presumed Rights are available unless notified to the contrary by the
applicable establishment. In other words, a business may wish to
retain its rights to not incur the additional expense and hassle of
supporting these Presumed Rights, but since these rights are usually
presumed, we simply ask them to undergo the very minor inconvenience
of posting a sign providing notice. So, rather than pass a city
ordinance restricting smoking, just pass an ordinance (or even better,
just a non-binding resolution if it works adequately) that they post a
sign if they don't have a non-smoking section or easy access for the
handicapped.
This way, those of us who need such accomodations will immediately see
a sign, ideally before we even park, and know that we need to take our
business elsewhere. Businesses which don't have room or adequate
facilities to provide non-smoking sections or handicapped access (or
which can't afford whatever remodeling would be required) would at
least have the option and continue to survive with their mostly
smoking, able-bodied customer base. Other businesses with the
resources and vision to accomodate these needs will have the advantage
of expanding their customer base and will make more money. Thus, a
perfect solution, a win/win for everyone.
As a side note, and I'm not entirely happy about this but wanted to
mention it because it's important to know, the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 effectively requires any "public business"
(including restaurants and bars) to provide "reasonable accomodation"
to any customer who has a disability, such as a handicap or
sensitivity to smoke, so if someone really wanted to push it, they
could legally force a business to accomodate them, under threat of the
$25K or $50K fine imposed by ADA and possible lawsuit by the "Justice"
Department. I'd much rather it not come to this, so I think a well
publicized city council resolution strongly encouraging businesses to
adopt this Presumed Rights proposal of simply putting out a sign etc.
should be adequate and a much more reasonable compromise than the all
or nothing approach of doing either nothing or passing a city
ordinance forcing all businesses to accomodate everyone. If there's
sufficient interest, I'd be glad to assist in drafting a suitable
resolution.
Vote for Robert M. Pritchett, Libertarian Candidate for
Texas House of Representatives Dist. 100 - 972-557-6583 http://vote4rmp.org ----- email RMP at Vote4RMP dot org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Christensen
Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Oppose Dallas Smoking Ban Today
To: Kevin Christensen
Hi!
I'm writing to let you know that Dallas bars and taverns need your
support!
Just as the downtown Dallas entertainment district is beginning to
grow, Dallas' mayor is proposing a smoking ban for bars and taverns
that will destroy any hope we have had of creating a thriving downtown
that compares to what Fort Worth has accomplished. The citizens of
Forth Worth recently spoke out against and squelched a smoking ban
that their city had unwisely proposed. Now it's our turn. We need to
send a loud and clear message to the Dallas mayor and council members
that we do not want them to turn our downtown area into a ghost town.
Local bars and taverns will most certainly lose a significant amount
of business to surrounding suburbs that allow smoking if this
ordinance is approved. This will undoubtedly lead to many businesses
being shut down and/or forced to relocate outside of the city limits.
Let the private businesses decide if they want to have smoking in
their establishments and send a message to the city that you do not
support this kind of government intrusion.
Contact information is below, and thank you in advance for your
support!
This is a very thoughtful idea, and I appreciate you not abandoning your libertarian principles when confronted with an issue that perhaps affects you more than others. Still, it's a compromise. That word has lately taken on a positive connotation, as if it is evidence of man's good will and ability to get along. Sometimes that's true, but when the choice is between something that is right and something that is wrong, a compromise is a poor choice. I'm still inclined to take the hard line that there are Inherent Rights (as you so ably described), and... well, that's it. Everything after that is just personal desires.
I appreciate you sounding off publicly on this issue. I too have launched many an email on this topic to the "leadership" at City Hall, as well as signing a number of petitions, answering online polls, etc. I have also enjoyed a cigar and cocktail on occasion at Mr. Christensen's Absinthe Room, and hope I will be able to continue to do so!
This is a case of
This is a case of incrementalism most insidious. The last smoking ban, which specifically allowed smoking in bars and certain other types of establishments is now being used as a precedent for the local government to strip away even more rights from business-owners.
If you don't like smoke - go to one of the thousands of non-smoking restaurants!
Soon, there will be no more smoking in homes, on streets, or anywhere. Worse, someone might use *that* law to govern other activity that occurs in the home...
It just keeps creeping until someone stands up and says, "Hell no!"
For the record....
"Hell no!"
Alternative proposal makes good compromise
Here's an email thread where I responded to what looks like an alert about a proposed smoking ban for bars in Dallas, it shows my counterproposal and a business owner's positive response.
Vote for Robert M. Pritchett, Libertarian Candidate for
Texas House of Representatives Dist. 100 - 972-557-6583
http://vote4rmp.org ----- email RMP at Vote4RMP dot org
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "'"Vote 4 RMP"'" ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: Ideal compromise to smoking ban
Thank you, Robert, and I think that's a splendid idea. I don't know of any
business owner who would have a problem with that, as opposed to the
proposed alternative. It would be my wish that the city could take this
approach instead.
Thanks again for your perspective -
Kevin Christensen
Owner
Absinthe Lounge
-----Original Message-----
From: "Vote 4 RMP" [mailto:RMP@Vote4RMP.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:44 PM
To: tom.leppert@dallascityhall.com; elba.garcia@dallascityhall.com;
dwaine.caraway@dallascityhall.com; pauline.medrano@dallascityhall.com;
david.neumann@dallascityhall.com; vonciel.hill@dallascityhall.com;
steven.salazar@dallascityhall.com; carolyn.davis@dallascityhall.com;
tennell.atkins@dallascityhall.com; sheffield.kadane@dallascityhall.com;
jerry.allen@dallascityhall.com; linda.koop@dallascityhall.com;
ron.natinsky@dallascityhall.com; mitchell.rasansky@dallascityhall.com;
angela.hunt@dallascityhall.com; Kevin Christensen
Cc: RMP@Vote4RMP.org
Subject: Ideal compromise to smoking ban
Importance: High
- I think I've figured out the perfect compromise on this issue and
some others - at least it's an idea worth considering. I haven't had
time to present it to the various cities etc. but given this message,
it seems timely to at least reply to here and I'd be interested to see
what y'all think about it. I think that this would be the better
approach, for Dallas and all cities, for restaurants and bars both,
and in fact state wide and even nation wide (although of course it
should not be Federal or perhaps even State law).
In case anyone's curious, I'm slightly handicapped, and I have
Congestive Heart Failure because half of my heart is dead as a result
of 50 years of second hand smoke. And as a part time musician, I'm
frequently exposed to smoke in clubs. Yet because I'm a libertarian, I
have the moral integrity to refuse to use government coercion to force
every business to accomodate me. The free market works much better,
especially when we simply use our brains and work together to create
reasonable and better solutions like this proposal.
The key is to distinguish between Inherent Rights and Presumed Rights.
Inherent Rights are basically the right to be free of force or fraud
per the Non-Aggression Principle as described at
http://common-law.net/nap.html and supported by libertarians, this is
the main principle that America was founded upon. Presumed Rights
(maybe a better name would be "Customary Privileges") are
the best way to handle the false "rights" which impose obligations on
other parties but which are usually considered "rights" as a social
custom these days, these are often considered rights especially by
liberals but they need to be distinguished. These would include the
"right" to not be discriminated against in employment, and the
"rights" to handicapped-accessible and smoke-free seating at
restaurants and bars. The way to make this work properly is that these
Presumed Rights are available unless notified to the contrary by the
applicable establishment. In other words, a business may wish to
retain its rights to not incur the additional expense and hassle of
supporting these Presumed Rights, but since these rights are usually
presumed, we simply ask them to undergo the very minor inconvenience
of posting a sign providing notice. So, rather than pass a city
ordinance restricting smoking, just pass an ordinance (or even better,
just a non-binding resolution if it works adequately) that they post a
sign if they don't have a non-smoking section or easy access for the
handicapped.
This way, those of us who need such accomodations will immediately see
a sign, ideally before we even park, and know that we need to take our
business elsewhere. Businesses which don't have room or adequate
facilities to provide non-smoking sections or handicapped access (or
which can't afford whatever remodeling would be required) would at
least have the option and continue to survive with their mostly
smoking, able-bodied customer base. Other businesses with the
resources and vision to accomodate these needs will have the advantage
of expanding their customer base and will make more money. Thus, a
perfect solution, a win/win for everyone.
As a side note, and I'm not entirely happy about this but wanted to
mention it because it's important to know, the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 effectively requires any "public business"
(including restaurants and bars) to provide "reasonable accomodation"
to any customer who has a disability, such as a handicap or
sensitivity to smoke, so if someone really wanted to push it, they
could legally force a business to accomodate them, under threat of the
$25K or $50K fine imposed by ADA and possible lawsuit by the "Justice"
Department. I'd much rather it not come to this, so I think a well
publicized city council resolution strongly encouraging businesses to
adopt this Presumed Rights proposal of simply putting out a sign etc.
should be adequate and a much more reasonable compromise than the all
or nothing approach of doing either nothing or passing a city
ordinance forcing all businesses to accomodate everyone. If there's
sufficient interest, I'd be glad to assist in drafting a suitable
resolution.
Vote for Robert M. Pritchett, Libertarian Candidate for
Texas House of Representatives Dist. 100 - 972-557-6583
http://vote4rmp.org ----- email RMP at Vote4RMP dot org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Christensen
Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Oppose Dallas Smoking Ban Today
To: Kevin Christensen
Hi!
I'm writing to let you know that Dallas bars and taverns need your
support!
Just as the downtown Dallas entertainment district is beginning to
grow, Dallas' mayor is proposing a smoking ban for bars and taverns
that will destroy any hope we have had of creating a thriving downtown
that compares to what Fort Worth has accomplished. The citizens of
Forth Worth recently spoke out against and squelched a smoking ban
that their city had unwisely proposed. Now it's our turn. We need to
send a loud and clear message to the Dallas mayor and council members
that we do not want them to turn our downtown area into a ghost town.
Local bars and taverns will most certainly lose a significant amount
of business to surrounding suburbs that allow smoking if this
ordinance is approved. This will undoubtedly lead to many businesses
being shut down and/or forced to relocate outside of the city limits.
Let the private businesses decide if they want to have smoking in
their establishments and send a message to the city that you do not
support this kind of government intrusion.
Contact information is below, and thank you in advance for your
support!
Kevin Christensen
Owner
Absinthe Lounge
CITY OF DALLAS
2007-2009 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAILING ADDRESS: Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas
75201-6390
TOM LEPPERT, MAYOR Room 5EN
214/670-4054
Chris Heinbaugh, Chief of Staff (214/670-0773)
214/670-0646 fax
Paula Blackmon, Deputy Chief of Staff (214/670-0656)
tom.leppert@dallascityhall.com
DR. ELBA GARCIA, MAYOR PRO TEM -- Place 1
214/670-4052
Elsa Cantu, Assistant (214/670-4052) Room 5EN
214/670-3409 fax
Mariza Perez, Secretary (214/670-4055)
elba.garcia@dallascityhall.com
DWAINE R. CARAWAY, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM -- Place 4 214/670-0781
Stephanie Pegues, Assistant (214/670-0781) Room 5EN
214/670-3409 fax
Esmeralda Martinez, Secretary (214/670-7056)
dwaine.caraway@dallascityhall.com
PAULINE MEDRANO -- Place 2 Room 5FN
214/670-4048
Rosa Gallegos, Assistant (214/670-4048)
214/670-5117 fax
Vacant, Secretary (214/670-4171)
pauline.medrano@dallascityhall.com
DAVID A. NEUMANN -- Place 3 Room 5FS
214/670-0776
Mindy Owen, Assistant (214/670-0776)
214/670-1833 fax
Lorri Ellis, Secretary (214/670-0779)
david.neumann@dallascityhall.com
VONCIEL JONES HILL -- Place 5 Room 5FN
214/670-0777
Steven Williams, Assistant (214/670-0777)
214/670-5117 fax
Glenda Aguirre, Secretary (214/670-0772)
vonciel.hill@dallascityhall.com
STEVE SALAZAR -- Place 6 Room 5FS
214/670-4199
Leticia Holt, Assistant (214/670-4199)
214/670-5115 fax
Delma Frausto, Secretary (214/670-6931)
steven.salazar@dallascityhall.com
CAROLYN R. DAVIS -- Place 7 Room 5FS
214/670-4689
Joyce Jones, Assistant (214/670-4689)
214/670-5115 fax
Jeannie Eneh, Secretary (214/670-5958)
carolyn.davis@dallascityhall.com
TENNELL ATKINS -- Place 8 Room 5FS
214/670-4066
Mary Hasan, Assistant (214/670-4066)
214/670-5115 fax
Lorri Ellis, Secretary (214/670-0779)
tennell.atkins@dallascityhall.com
SHEFFIE KADANE -- Place 9 Room 5FS
214/670-4069
Caroline Nosworthy, Assistant (214/670-4069)
214/670-5115 fax
Connie Sanchez, Secretary (214/670-5659)
sheffield.kadane@dallascityhall.com
JERRY R. ALLEN -- Place 10 Room 5FS
214/670-4068
Patricia Alexander Love, Assistant (214/670-4068)
214/670-5115 fax
Jeannie Eneh, Secretary (214/670-5958)
jerry.allen@dallascityhall.com
LINDA KOOP -- Place 11 Room 5FN
214/670-7817
Debbie Brown, Assistant (214/670-7817)
214/670-5117 fax
Glenda Aguirre (214/670-0772)
linda.koop@dallascityhall.com
RON NATINSKY -- Place 12 Room 5FN
214/670-4067
Jessica Rios, Assistant (214/670-4067)
214/670-5117 fax
Karen Pruett, Secretary (214/670-7057)
ron.natinsky@dallascityhall.com
MITCHELL RASANSKY-- Place 13 Room 5FN
214/670-3816
Brenda Thompson, Assistant (214/670-3816)
214/670-5117 fax
Karen Pruett, Secretary (214/670-7057)
mitchell.rasansky@dallascityhall.com
ANGELA HUNT -- Place 14 Room 5FN
214/670-5415
Debbie Tarpley, Assistant (214/670-5415)
214/670-5117 fax
Connie Sanchez, Secretary (214/670-5659)
angela.hunt@dallascityhall.com
Uncompromising
Robert,
This is a very thoughtful idea, and I appreciate you not abandoning your libertarian principles when confronted with an issue that perhaps affects you more than others. Still, it's a compromise. That word has lately taken on a positive connotation, as if it is evidence of man's good will and ability to get along. Sometimes that's true, but when the choice is between something that is right and something that is wrong, a compromise is a poor choice. I'm still inclined to take the hard line that there are Inherent Rights (as you so ably described), and... well, that's it. Everything after that is just personal desires.
I appreciate you sounding off publicly on this issue. I too have launched many an email on this topic to the "leadership" at City Hall, as well as signing a number of petitions, answering online polls, etc. I have also enjoyed a cigar and cocktail on occasion at Mr. Christensen's Absinthe Room, and hope I will be able to continue to do so!