Issues: January 2006 Archives

Digger's Realm trackbacked to my article on California declaring secondhand smoke a pollutant, angry at the "violation" or "smoker's rights" and saying "Searchlight Crusade who thinks smokers should be taken out and shot."



No Digger, I don't want you shot, and that's not what I said. Read the article. I want you to grow up.



Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, and this is one case where the People's Republik of Kalifornia has it more right than anyone I'm aware of.



Either you are an adult, and you may choose to smoke, or you are not, and I am justified in keeping what has been more than adequately proven to be a deadly habit out of your reach.



But being an adult means more than just "I'm old enough to choose for myself!" which any five year old can claim, and most do. It means being responsible for the consequences of your actions, not just to yourself but to others.



I, and a fair sized minority of people out there, are allergic to tobacco byproducts. Cigarette smoke, among other things. Your rights stop at my nose, but your tobacco smoke doesn't. In my younger days, when California was less enlightened on this subject than we are now, I regularly spent entire weeks going around sneezing my face off, coughing and hacking and wheezing, because some immature child could not be responsible about their emissions. Usually, about the time the attack was starting to let up, some other egotistical child brought another one on. It still happens even today.



Nor are the people like myself, who are allergic, the only ones to suffer adverse effects. Your tobacco byproducts stink. They cause clothes and drapery and carpets and offices and elevators and taxicabs and everything else used by members of the public to stink. I know any number of people who become nauseated, some to the point of involuntary emission, because spoiled immature brats insist upon their so-called "right" to pollute the community environment to zero beneficial purpose. And there are even larger numbers of people who Just Don't Like It.



When you claim that you're an adult, and therefore have the "right" to smoke, you are also claiming responsibility for the emissions. There is no system of "rights" that I'm aware, under which you have the "right" to choose to lessen or eliminate anyone else's ability to enjoy the fruits of the community, much less the "right" to make someone else physically ill. Quite frankly, I'd rather you took a punch at my nose. That I can see coming, and that I have a pretty fair chance at blocking, and even if I fail to block the consequences are likely to be less severe, and also if I believe offensive action in self defense (I think a Louisville Slugger is about appropriate for most, reserving firearms for only the most egregious actions ;-) ), then the standards of the community anywhere have no serious difficulties with such responses when you have chosen to initiate force that way.



Smoker's clubs? Fine, so long as they are private property, and the sign at the entrance, all advertising, all logos, all business cards, and especially all help wanted ads include some prominent graphic or words that indicates smoking is allowed, and you are prepared to accommodate any persons who choose not to smoke whose employment duties carry them there (Delivery persons, repairfolk, etcetera. If they didn't choose to be employed there, but you need them to stay in business, and therefore an adult is responsible to make it so they don't have to breathe your poison. A good breathing apparatus with an air tank should be sufficient for most purposes). In public conveyances, on public lands, in public offices? No. Not under any circumstances that could lead to unwilling persons being exposed. The irresponsible behavior of smokers as a group has made it such that nobody rational should be willing to give that proportion of the smoking community who perhaps are mature enough to qualify as adults the opportunity.



In short Digger, your claim that any of your so-called "rights" has been violated is utterly without merit, as you would realize were you an adult in fact, instead of merely de jure. In fact, it is smokers in general who are violating the rights of the rest of us to breathe air unpolluted by at least that particular group of noxious chemicals.



So grow up. Or don't light up.

Hooray!



Unlike many confused libertarians, I welcome this: Calif. Says Secondhand Smoke a Pollutant. You see, I've spent my life having my nose (and throat, sinuses, and lungs) rubbed in the fact that I'm dealing with the hazardous chemicals smokers emit whether I want to or not. Even here in California, I have spent a significant portion of my life sick because of some inconsiderate boor's smoking, and you folks wonder why I'm in favor of increasing regulations. The answer is because you, in the aggregate, will not control where and when you emit. You congregate right at the entrance to damned near every building, as if to take revenge for not being able to inflict the byproducts of your habit on those who have chosen not to allow you to emit your noxious waste inside those buildings. You stand upwind of people who want no part of your filthy habit and inflict your hazardous waste upon innocent bystanders. Even in theoretically non-smoking restaurants, every time somebody opens the door there's a major chance of your foul-smelling byproduct being pushed in by the wind. If you weren't protected by the tobacco lobby, you'd be dealing with these folks and these folks every time you light up. And I'm thinking that would be a good thing. I don't see an essential difference between the smokestack of a coal-fired plant and a smoker. Actually, I see the former as producing economic benefits to society whereas the latter produces only costs. A mandatory containment system for tobacco byproducts would make my whole decade.



I concede your right to smoke so long as you concede my right not to breathe the byproducts of it. Poison yourself all you want, any time you want. But that doesn't give you the right to inflict it on anyone else.

Rhymes with Right notes an abuse of eminent domail even more abusive than Kelo vs. New London. A man in his Texas city was forced to sell a 105 acre parcel to the Port of Houston for $1. The Port is planning to build a cruise ship terminal on the land. I haven't got a way to check the comparables in Houston, but even the 1.9 million dollar figure seems ridiculously low (I know one of the people involved in building the new port down in Baja California. Even with Mexican land prices, etcetera, they're talking about a dollar figure in the tens of dollars per square foot range). Now compare and contrast that to commercially zoned land here in the United States, near to a major city, close enough to navigable water to be used for transshipment. Even at $10 per square foot, that's something like 45 million dollars, not a mere 1.9 million, and I'm guessing at least three times that would be appropriate.



I've said ever since this got put up. I'm in Real Estate, and stuff like this part of what agents and loan officers discuss among ourselves. The head of our office has been doing this twenty-odd years, and he's seen a lot more than I have. The issue for abuse in eminent domain is not so much can they? as it is about money. Ripping some poor sod off because they've got political connections and they can. Be honest with yourself: If you could get a $150 million dollar property for 1.9 million, let alone one dollar, wouldn't you take advantage of it?



The only way to prevent this is to take the ability to steal someone's land for less than the market price off the table. Since many folks don't have the resources to fight, or to document value, this means also requiring that their attorney and appraisal fees be promptly paid by the condemning agency. I think this is certainly no less than someone whose property is being involuntarily taken is due. Make it worthwhile for the condemning agency to offer more than a real market price for involuntary condemnation. Yes, the system could be gamed by mega developers, and I don't care. They're gaming it now. This protects the average person who does not have the resources.



The guy concerned is not a speculator or some wealthy investor. The land had been in his family over 100 years. But even if he'd just bought it the week before, he should be entitled to more than a fair price, to make up for the fact that the state is taking it at the point of a gun, whether he wants to sell or not, and his expenses of fighting the condemnation, which he did not ask for, and fairly evaluating the land should rightly fall on those initiating the suit. Last I checked, it wasn't a crime to own land. Even felons and illegal immigrants and foreign nationals who never set foot in our country are permitted to do so. Why are we punishing our own citizens?



I wrote this on July 1st, 2005, and this on July 10th. Either one is far more rational, and does more to actually solve the problem than taking the tack of flat prohibition, which would not work. But by removing the money incentive for abuse, you're pulling the rug out from under the reasons why it happens, as well as insuring that the victims of condemnation are compensated justly.