12.27.07
Ryan vs. the Anti-Smoking Movement
Tonight I initiated stage one of my assault on the anti-smoking movement here in Wisconsin. I have decided that politics, policy, rights and common decency don’t work, so it is time to fight fallacy with fact and fall back on that wonderfully objective argument called hard science. Below is a copy of the letter that I sent off to involved WI government and advocacy groups in the hopes of forcing a response from them that I can use in future arguments.
I will be posting their responses as I receive them.
Open Letter to Smoke Free Wisconsin Requesting Documentation for Smoke Free Wisconsin Health Claims
Dear Smoke Free Wisconsin et al.;
cc: American Lung Association of Wisconsin, American Cancer Society (Wisconsin), Wisconsin State Senator Harsdorf, Wisconsin Assembly Representative Hraychuck, Governor Jim Doyle, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
The Breathe Free Wisconsin Act (SB150) has been based upon health claims from Smoke Free Wisconsin (SFW). On behalf of people of Wisconsin, the one million, two hundred and twenty eight thousand smokers and the thousands of small businesses who will be affected, I am requesting clarification and validation for those health claims. To institute this invasive and extreme smoking ban, the public needs to learn if any concrete evidence can be provided to validate these claims. A law of this magnitude, with wide-spread social impact and based upon SFW’s unsubstantiated sensationalist claims, needs to be documented for public review and shared in understandable format. Reports containing computer generated statistics of mortalities and illness are not sufficient.
Also insufficient are the previous Surgeon General Carmona’s 2006 Press Release, Executive Summary, or quotes which did not reflect the contents of his 700-plus page smoking report. Dr. Carmona’s report simply rehashed previous Surgeon General claims, made alarmist statements such as referencing Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as being more toxic than plutonium which is hardly a relevant comparison as Plutonium-239 is far more ominous sounding than it is toxic, and republished previous Tobacco Control studies which had never been able to document any conclusions more definite than finding a “causal relationship” between ETS and health threats.
One particular abuse example for this fully justifiable request to require accurate documentation for Wisconsin tobacco-smoke-health-threats, claimed by SFW, is the distorted claim that ETS kills 53,000 nonsmoking Americans every year. Why the need to be deceptive? SFW’s claim of 53,000 deaths doesn’t coincide with EPA or OSHA reports and seem to be based on a sole American Cancer Society (ACS) claim. In comparison, the EPA estimates between 10,960 to 19,720 cancer and heart disease-related deaths could be tied to ETS. How is this gross exaggeration justifiable?
The American Cancer Society has implied through incomplete references that breathing in an environment containing (or that has contained) second hand smoke, is the same thing as actively smoking and that any exposure to ETS is harmful to one’s health. While the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society and anti-tobacco advocacy groups (Smoke Free Wisconsin et al.) are motivated by the elimination of smoking, a much more objective approach would be to look at OSHA regulations which are governed by the objective of ensuring overall health and safety. As such, OSHA does not have any regulations regarding ETS and has found that the main chemical compounds found in ETS that are covered by OSHA regulations do not exceed permissible exposure limits under normal situations (per 29 CFR 1910.1000 Standard Interpretation dated 24 February, 2003).
Similarly, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed a study of non-smoking employee’s exposure to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP) via ETS during a normal shift work at taverns and restaurants that allow smoking. The study found that maximum chemical levels attained during sampling only reached 15.4% of OSHA’s exposure limit and included solanesol, 3-ethenyl pyridine, and nicotine and RSP levels were only 30%-50% of American Medical Association estimates. Another similar study from the Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology looked at 1564 tavern and restaurant workers nation wide over a 24-hour period and found their exposure to be far lower than numbers assumed by the EPA or OSHA. These studies are in stark contrast to the sensationalist opinions rendered by SFW and used as justification for a statewide smoking ban.
Until a public statement or press release making visible and crystal clear the distortions of
these (and other) sensationalist claims to laymen, elected officials and the news media, the intentionally deceptive damage cannot even begin to be reversed. The public is being terrorized by phony health claims, and needs clarification that many ETS chemical compounds such as n-Nitrosodimethylamine (as the referenced element for the “16 cigarette” media blitz perpetuated by the ACS), are common carcinogens and threaten us most seriously in our drinking water and food supply .
Solid proof is required for Wisconsin (or any other US governing body) to justify bending our US Constitutional Republic’s governmental framework and dismissing the protected liberties in several of its Amendments. The Breathe Free Wisconsin Act basically ignores our First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Considering the serious state-wide repercussions from this law, justification is required, not vague interpretations of “causal association” health threats.
In addition, financial ties such as ACS’ relationship with nicotine replacement products manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, who hope to increase sales because of this ban, should also be published to avoid misrepresentation of charitable interests and to supply full and honest disclosure to interested parties.
Therefore, Wisconsin residents, Wisconsin Legislature and the Wisconsin news media need to be supplied with actual documented identities of those injured or killed for the Breathe Free Wisconsin Act to be legitimately recognized.
Sincerely,
/Signed/
Ryan Evans
gimper30 said,
December 27, 2007 at 11:04 pm
An outstanding summary of the facts! Unfortunately, the “intelligentsia” have decided that they know more about what is for our own good than “regular folk” do and, therefore, they can justify any means to accomplish their ends. Thus, failure to present the public with all the facts is not only acceptable but necessary. Remember that it it was this “elite” that was behind the Inquistion, the burning of witches, eugenics,etc. The conrol of information has always been the central focus of Fascist propoganda. we need some crack and fearless investigative reporting done to awaken the world to the pseudo science of the Antis.
mpinkeyes said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:03 am
Go get ‘em Ryan. That was a brilliantly written letter stating facts and calling them out at the same time. I can’t wait to see what kind of responses you receive.
mpls Bob said,
December 28, 2007 at 10:46 am
Being from Minnesota, my wife and I now have to drive to Hudson to go to a bar to smoke. Good luck getting exposure for your cause. I’m sure its an uphill battle to get the media or lawmakers to listen over their own agendas. I know Wisconsin bars have done a much better job of getting the word out than our bars. Keep fighting for liberty Ryan!
alaskancamel said,
December 28, 2007 at 11:48 am
I cant wait to hear if you get any responses from your letter. Knowing them, however, they will brush it under the rug. Good luck.
alaskanspawn said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Mpls Bob…seriously? You drive to Hudson to smoke in a bar? Wow, hardcore smoker. I really don’t know what to say about that, that seems like a completely different deal than just smoking ban issues. That’s issues on a whole new level hehe.
Anyway, good luck with that letter Ryan. I have to point out one thing. The quote “casual” should be “causal”, very different. There is a spot where it says casual but there are far more spots that mention causal. Please double check that since I know where this letter came from.
alaskanspawn said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:55 pm
As a matter of fact that spot in the executive summary where it says casual is a typo…it should read causal.
I just want to make sure you don’t get called out on that by accident.
arclightzero said,
December 28, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Hmm, you’re probably right. I should have used “causal” but I guess it works to say “casual” instead. Different meaning but similar end result.
Anyway, I know lots of people who go to Wisconsin for a drink and a smoke. It’s something that people enjoy and the fact that the pleasure police are now telling people what they should or shouldn’t enjoy is ridiculous. I applaud people who don’t cave in and are willing to go to Wisconsin to do something that they enjoy.
As always, I am not saying that it is healthy or good for you, but we’re all grown up adults here, and if people choose to smoke and drink because they enjoy it, that is their choice and they should have that freedom.
arclightzero said,
December 28, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Ok, got my first response back:
Well, I can see that she will be useful in this fight. I guess “in the loop” is better than being blown off. I have higher hopes for my State Senator as she is a Republican and very involved with the community here.
mtrockz said,
December 28, 2007 at 9:26 pm
TOBACO MAY BE THE ANTI-DOPE FOR CHEMTRAILS,after all smoking cant be as bad as what were being sprayed with.google chemtrails and then tell me smoking is the biger problem,its sad we the people use to have rights,go ron paul
alaskanspawn said,
December 28, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I’m not saying you can’t smoke just that going across the border to smoke when you can just step outside is a different set of issues. Just amazing to me.
alaskanspawn said,
December 28, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Hmm, chemtrails sounds a bit far fetched and very much like a conspiracy theory.
Michael J. McFadden said,
December 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Excellent piece Ryan! Let’s hope it provokes some thought. I’d also recommend printing out and sending legislators a copy of the pdf version of the “Generic Stiletto” that can be found at:
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4472
as I believe it is the best summary of the health and economic lies behind bans that is available for casual reading (e.g. at a bar over a beer…
(Note: I wrote it so my opinion may be a bit prejudiced!) Please also note: while it can be read on the computer it was very specifically designed for printout!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Michael J. McFadden said,
December 29, 2007 at 10:06 pm
AlaskanSpawn wrote, ” going across the border to smoke when you can just step outside is a different set of issues. Just amazing to me.
It’s a matter of relaxation and being able to enjoy oneself. As an analogy, think about a restaurant with very strict “noise” rules. Now obviously no one likes a restaurant experience filled with screaming kids, teenyboppers and execs yelling into cell phones, or even being seated next to an extremely loud and boisterous party table. Better restaurants will try to moderate such behavior and will occasionally even ask people to leave.
BUT… that’s a very different kettle of fish than a restaurant that tries to imitate an extreme library zone: where a spontaneous laugh at your partner’s funny, or even just a slightly louder than whispery conversation might merit a stern request by the Maitre D’ to “take it outside.”
No one likes to feel that their normal relaxed behavior is being watched over and scrutinized by guardians. Smokers enjoy smoking: they enjoy the sensation of being able to take a sip of their drink, then a thoughtful puff on their smoke, and then frame a response to whatever their partner has said… and to do all of this while sitting down in a friendly, relaxed, warm and welcoming atmosphere: not huddled in a bunch on a sidewalk with traffic whizzing by or even out in a windy tent surrounded by propane spewing space heaters.
Many smokers and their nonsmoking friends would quite happily drive a few extra miles to have a more enjoyable evening together without being “watched” or having their time together interrupted.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
ILLINOIS CONSERVATIVE » The Junk Science Bonanza said,
December 30, 2007 at 1:29 am
[...] Ryan vs. the Anti-Smoking Movement [...]
arclightzero said,
December 30, 2007 at 9:55 am
Thanks, Michael! That’s high praise coming from you, and I have printed off the booklet and will be sending that out along with a hard copy of my letter to the involved parties. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this.
alaskanspawn said,
December 30, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Michael, you make drinking and smoking seems absolutely serene…”they enjoy the sensation of being able to take a sip of their drink, then a thoughtful puff on their smoke, and then frame a response to whatever their partner has said”. That sounds fantastic!
Really, I have no problem admitting that the anti-smoking movement is using dirty tactics to realize it’s agenda. They’ve twisted the facts in their favor. It really does sound like the smoking companies tactics before legislation restricted them from trying to go after kids. I’ve tried to fall back on statistics that others have refuted and opinions that others have argued. Smoke, in all forms, is bad for humans in “x” dose over “x” time. What that equation is, I’d rather not find out if I can help it. I have to admit smoking is more of a nuisance to me because it ruins my dinner or my night out or my attempt to smell good or my frame of mind or etc…it’s certainly not the serene visual Michael gave us. I could go on and on, I really have no sympathy for something that has no value floating around my favorite restaurant or bar. I understand your arguments for rights but as I’ve stated before I draw my line on the other side of this argument. Also, as stated before, I would be right here arguing WITH you all if that same smoking ban was to extend to the home or car, which I understand it is in some places. I’m so sensitive to smoke that I will not even drive behind someone that is smoking so you can see where I’m coming from.
As an aside, I used to smoke a pipe with my buddies in college but if someone were to enter the premises that was not part of that group or hated the smoke then I would stop. Wouldn’t that be great if I could walk into a bar or restaurant full of smokers and they would stop smoking for my sake? But that’s really not the case and never will be so for the sake of the non-smokers I have to side with the smoking ban in public places.
gimper30 said,
December 31, 2007 at 9:04 am
to alaskan pawn….if, as is truly the case, second-hand smoke poses no real danger, then why not leave the decision on smoking to the owner of the restaurant or tavern? In almost every community there are places that would and do allow smoking and others that would and do not. To think that EVERYONE should bow to your very selfish desires means you are on a very big ego trip. Hello ?—just avoid those places where people are allowed to smoke! Or, is it asking too much to allow the businessman to make decisions that are best for his business in the home of the free and the land of the brave?
alaskancamel said,
December 31, 2007 at 10:45 am
I have to absolutely agree that smoking and drinking can be a serene experience. If I have a difficult day, I enjoy nothing more than sitting in front of my TV at night, sipping a nice whisky, and enjoying a fine cigar. It helps me relax, it settles the stomach, it helps me think, and it has the ability to refocus my day. (and as for the obvious placebo response I assume I would get for this post, everything except the “refocus of my day” has been proven scientifically)
added thought, for a subject that Spawn said he was going to drop because it could go on for ever, I still seem to see many tobacco related posts from him. :o)
arclightzero said,
December 31, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Spawn, I see where you’re coming from, but the question that has to be adequately answered is the question as to who’s rights trump who’s? Does your right to enjoy smoke-free air at a bar trump a smoker’s right to do something that he enjoys?
It’s a toss up, which means the great equalizer should be the bar owner. His rights should trump all else because it is his private property, and for all intents and purposes nobody has rights over his property unless he specifically grants them. In other words, you do not even have the right to enter private property unless that right is specifically granted.
As such, a bar owner should have the right to have the final say on smoking. If he allows smoking, then the smokers “win” and if he chooses not to allow smoking, the non-smokers “win.” It’s all fair.
As far as public property goes, ban smoking all you want. It’s all fair game.
alaskanspawn said,
January 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Well public vs. private is really a touchy subject. I consider my home private, your home private, everyone’s home private. Do I consider the local bar private property…yes and no. In MN public property is defined partially by the fact that the public, in general, uses or is allowed to enter. Does the owner own his property outright, well as Alaskancamel pointed out…no. Not only does he/she not own the property but he/she has to abide by certain rules in order to “allow” the public to use or enter said premises.
So if restaurants and bars are not private and they have to abide by certain government rules to protect the public they serve then what rights do the owners really have. Well they certainly have the right to refuse service under certain conditions. They certainly have the right to serve what they want (within reason, I think they would get shut down for serving live monkey brains for instance :-)). But do they have the right to decide what’s best for the public they serve? I personally don’t think so. I think the laws of the land don’t think so either.
Ya, I seem to be a glutton for punishment but Arc keeps putting up some good arguments and in order to stretch my brain I am compelled to throw myself back into the fray hehe.
So something that was brought up by Alaskancamel had me thinking. He mentioned that exposure to vehicle exhaust was far more dangerous than ETS. There’s a story behind this that I’ll refrain from going into but the point is…there are quite a few things in today’s world that are dangerous, why aren’t we going after all of these other things? I don’t think anyone would argue that exhaust is dangerous, even deadly under the right conditions. What would happen if we tried to ban exhaust (green movement)? Should we take a look at all dangerous pollutants and tackle them all? I personally think we should take a look at some of the more dangerous and take a shot at the “low hanging fruit”. ETS is a “low hanging fruit”.
Oh and btw, that serene environment that Alaskancamel spoke of was AT HOME. I doubt seriously that anyone would consider the local bar or tavern “serene”.
gimper30 said,
January 1, 2008 at 10:28 pm
alaskanspawn…pardon my previous freudian slip when i referrred to you as pawn not spawn but ironically i hit the nail right on the head. you are a pawn of the anti smoking cabal. if you are really intereted in the truth, do a little digging beyond the untruths being foisted on us. reread ryan’s original posting again. these are the real facts.
alaskanspawn said,
January 1, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Actually, gimper30, my agenda is my own. Always has been and always will be. The fact that it matches I agree with the ban is purely coincidental. I’ve been preaching non-smoking for so long I can’t remember. Long before it was an issue, at least a big of an issue as it is now. Now, some might argue that since I’m only 35 that this argument has been going on for much longer than that, that I could not have independantly come up with this.
The story goes like this: My parents used to smoke as well as their friends (neighbors), hell everyone seemed to smoke back when I was young. One night we were at our neighbors house watching a movie and 3 of us kids…about ages 7-9 (I think) were wanting to be like our parents and smoke. For reasons that escape me, our parents thought it would be a good idea to let us try a smoke. Well, I about puked up a lung as did my neighbors kids. I have been anti-smoking ever since. Yes, I’ve smoked a pipe but didn’t inhale it much because someone told me you weren’t supposed to?!? Still not sure that’s true hehe. I mostly just tried to look cool with my college buddies and play with the smoke. Needless to say that was shortlived. I’ve done pot but I could probably count on 2 hands the number of times I’ve smoked pot. Just not something I really got in to.
If you do a little digging you’ll find that I’ve stated in a different post that I like to come up with my own ideas and then if I come across something that supports my ideas then it lends credibility. In this case there are numerous reports that conclude the CAUSAL, not CASUAL, relationship of ETS to certain diseases which I suspected all along. I’ve had my gradma and grandpa in-law die of tobacco related cancer so there is no report or study out there that will ever convince me that ETS is not hazerdous. Quite the contrary, the fact that they have done the studies means there was inherant risk of ETS. I’ll concede that it’s not as dangerous as direct smoke but just from a pure ppm standpoint but I will not concede that OSHA or any of the other independent studies has the definitive answer to the question. I’m not a statistician and the numbers provided in those reports are gibberish to me. I do understand the Oak Ridge report a little but it doesn’t add up to me. There are even reports that ORNL has ties to the tobacco company http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=331 I don’t know who to believe so I tend to believe myself and my own experiences.
arclightzero said,
January 2, 2008 at 10:20 am
Spawn, here’s an easy way to look at things. Look at who is saying what and ask what they have to gain by what they say.
ORNL and OSHA are fairly objective. OSHA is concerned with employee safety. ORNL is simply concerned with science and facts. To think that these people are in with the tobacco companies is pure conspiracy theory at its worst.
When you look at people like no-smoke.org, smoke free Wisconsin etc, their goal is simple - the complete cessation of smoking. They are very goal oriented, and they will only cite those things that they feel will support their cause. It’s like global warming. If you only inundate people with one side of the story, how can a fair and objective opinion ever be formed? Sadly, just like global warming, any data or reports that go against the goal of the anti’s is immediately disregarded as being manipulated by the dark hand of evil big tobacco (just like anything counter to global warming is automatically an insidious plot by big oil).
When you see trends like this, it should raise every alarm in our heads. We should be asking why it is that when we deal with things that people feel very [personally] passionate about, every bit of data that doesn’t fit their agenda is dismissed as being bought off by big [insert evil industrial entity here]? Could we not say the same thing about their data? Couldn’t the global warming data be funded by an evil self-serving entity looking to capitalize off of the hype (big green)? I have outlined this before in a number of posts where I have traced out massive money trails surrounding global warming promotion. And what about anti-smoking? Money comes from particularly biased organizations as well as companies that capitalize on smoking cessation products.
The only thing you can do is weigh the objective facts as you can see them. For instance, if I were exposed to the same chemicals that are in ETS at my workplace in a non-smoke-related situation, OSHA says I am fine. However, turn that situation into smoke-related and now people say that any exposure is harmful. So you can look at this in one of two ways: either OSHA has been bought off by big tobacco to lie which will then put other workers at risk of chemical exposure just so ETS doesn’t look so bad; or you can look at it as the anti-smoking movement - who has the explicit goal of complete smoking cessation - is willing to over exaggerate the facts to scare the hell out of people and drive their agenda through skewed reporting.
Which is more likely?
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 10:56 am
Well I think my point to posting that link was that there are discrepencies on both sides. I even found a link in the British Medical Journal that supposedly is not linked to any big tobacco that says there is a definite link to ischaemic heart disease and ETS.
Here is a quote from the discussion section near the bottom: Evidence for a large effect from a small exposure
Environmental exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with an excess risk of ischaemic heart disease of 30% and is estimated to cause an excess risk of 23% (95% confidence interval 14% to 33%), increasing the risk of death from ischaemic heart disease between the ages of 60 and 69 in British men who do not smoke from about 5% to 6%. So large an effect from a relatively small exposure, though unlikely on first impression, is supported by a great deal of evidence.
Now, there is a lot of information in that document but I’m pretty sure the conclusion was somewhat surprising to them as well that ETS did have a surprisingly large affect on heart disease.
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 1:13 pm
link… http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/973
gimper30 said,
January 2, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Alaskanspawn……you just don’t get it and it’s because you don’t want to. Arclightzero hit it right on the head. It’s not where it’s published but WHO funded the study. FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Well actually I do get it :-). Those studies were funded by tobacco, even if it proves indirectly the studies authenticity or accuracy cannot be assessed.
In fact BMJ has also done a number of other studies, one which concludes that ETS does not have a link to tobacco related mortality. Several others from BMJ do support the link from ETS to heart disease, diabetes, etc… Go figure, they seem to be pretty independent.
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 6:44 pm
In fact if you follow the money as suggested you’ll find that most “ETS is not harmful” studies are linked in some way to tobacco.
Interestingly enough, I did a little digging into the BMJ studies and found a rebuttal study and I thought to myself, well once again I have been proved wrong. Interesting, on the first page of that rebuttal study was an acknowledgement of tobacco funding.
Big tobacco has been directly or indirectly funding anti-anti-smoking studies since the 70’s. So really if you follow the money you will end up nowhere. Both sides have been using the numbers to their advantage. So as I stated, I do get it and what it comes down to is…does the bar or restaurant owner have the right to decide what’s right for the public he/she serves? What makes you think they have the capacity to make that decision or the knowledge or education or the wisdom? What makes you think they even care about their workers or patrons? A smoke free workplace is, by default, more healthy than a smoke filled workplace. Rigth or wrong, we can’t make the assumption that the owners will do what’s right for the public or the workers.
Do ya get it? I suppose you would allow smoking in the workplace? In the aft cabin of planes? In hospitals? How about doctors’ offices? It sounds a little absurd to me.
arclightzero said,
January 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm
It’s funny you bring up the BMJ and the fact that there are many opinions and studies. For instance, there is also this one (which you may have already seen):
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
The study was:
And the conclusion was:
Another point of interest is that this study was originally funded by the American Cancer Society, and then university programs funded by cigarette taxes. The author admits that he has received funds from tobacco companies for research he has done, but not during the course of this particular study.
So as always, there are studies that tell us things along the entire spectrum. So again I simply reiterate that when there is question it is better to err on the side of more freedom instead of increased restriction.
gimper30 said,
January 2, 2008 at 6:50 pm
go back to smoking your pipe….studies, in your mind funded by big tobacco (!), have shown that smoking leads to more brain stimulation…and that is my final comment…you are too dogmatic for me
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 7:16 pm
A recent study, don’t know who funded it but worth a look…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071126104424.htm
Btw, there are lots of drugs that stimulate the brain but that doesn’t mean that it’s good for you or me. Seriously.
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Ya Arc that was the one I was referring to. I was just looking up the funding for that one and found the tobacco related disease research association.
That’s what lead to the link at science daily. Obviously a non-smoking site but still worth a look.
arclightzero said,
January 2, 2008 at 7:48 pm
You’re forgetting one important factor here. he free market always works. If people refuse to patronize an establishment, the business owner will be forced to change to meet the market or they will disappear. If people choose not to go someplace that allows smoking, then the owner will have to change - even if that means the one or two people who smoke there get screwed. You can’t run a business on those few people.
On the other hand, if the place is booming and people continue to come, then obviously the business is providing something that the public wants. The fact of the matter remains that there are lots of smokers out there, and those smokers like to go out and smoke. As long as there is a market for something, it shouldn’t be forcibly taken away unless it violates reasonable laws.
We can take this right back to drinking. Drinking is a much greater threat to the general public, so why hasn’t it been banned?
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I don’t think the free market ALWAYS works. Did people stop going to hospitals to avoid smoke? Did people stop flying to avoid smoking in the cabin?
I think the free market does work in a lot of cases but not all.
No one is arguing the fact that alcohol is dangerous, it is. We should ban cars because they kill people and ban bicycle toe clips because people take terrible tumbles while their feet are stuck on the pedals (lol, raises hand).
I’ve said it many many times that each situation should be taken a look at seperately. The trans-fat thing is silly and shouldn’t even be on the table for discussion. I’m with ya there. Again, if they try to ban smoking altogether, I’ll be there protesting with you.
arclightzero said,
January 2, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Spawn, that is a good point, and I forgot to tell you that I agree with you. There are definately times and places for everything. Hospitals, public transportation, public buildings… Places where people have to go… Smoking should be prohibited as a matter of common decency.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that bars/taverns/pubs etc are the right time or place and the choice should be up to the owner. I would even go so far as to say that general restaurants that don’t have an enclosed smoking area could be subject to bans - although that would be pushing it in my book.
But you’re right, there are definitely situations that should be looked at and scrutinized… I suspect that people don’t want to do that which is where these annoying blanket bans come from.
alaskancamel said,
January 2, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Spawn,
I am curious what you mean by saying a study is funded by tobacco. Isnt that like saying a study is funded by air? Just curious on detail.
alaskancamel said,
January 2, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Alaskanspawn,
I think you know where I stand on most issues, so I will not bore you with that here. I will say that one point I have to take issue with is that the free market does ALWAYS work. The problem is that we have seen so little evidence of a free market that most people are misinformed or misunderstand that little fact. Every time that a “free market” has failed is because government has intervened and tainted that market.
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Camel, there are really only 2 sides to this argument: Big tobacco and non-smokers. Finding a truly independent study on ETS is becoming increasingly difficult. I mentioned that the big tobacco companies have been funding “rebuttal” research since the 70’s and perhaps earlier. The airline industry is a good example of one of the earlier studies. There were a lot of complaints from passengers and flight attendents about the smoking in the cabin. This prompted a study by the tobacco companies on the effects of ETS. From what I’ve read, sorry didn’t save the links, they did not like the results so they modified the report in their favor prior to releasing it.
Ever since then they’ve launched a rigorous campaign to dilute the results of scientific efforts to prove the hazards of ETS. Completely understandable since the results affected their bottom line. Any business would do the same, no fault there. ORNL has been mentioned as an independent study but links to tobacco funding have been shown lessening the validity and intention of their reports (bias). OSHA has stayed out of the battle, I guess their feeling was that the state and local governments were doing a fine job regulating ETS and since they err on the side of caution no regulations were necessary. Every time a so called independent study comes out “proving” that ETS is dangerous the tobacco company directly or indirectly funds research to disprove or dilute the results. After following the money trail on a few of these studies that’s what I’ve found. Again, this is completely understandable considering the bottom line but it does make you question the results of these “rebuttal” studies. Not sure what you meant by “funded by air”, please explain.
So if free markets and ideal governments don’t exist and never have, why are we arguing about it? A pipe dream? Perhaps we should vote on everything, that would certainly a more ideal government…prolly wouldn’t get anything done tho but what the hay. Did the ability to smoke in a bar or restaurant get us closer to that free market or was that just another pipe dream?
alaskanspawn said,
January 2, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Oh btw, the internet is as close to a free market as it gets and I certainly don’t want the government interferring with that so that net neutrality debate is something that I do feel strongly about.
alaskanspawn said,
January 3, 2008 at 9:15 am
So, I have a question. Would all of you withdraw your stance on civil liberties if ETS was found indisputably dangerous?
I haven’t heard anyone’s response to the MRI evidence. I’m very curious to see how it will play out. Obviously it’s very early but is it complete hogwash or does it have credibility? If it proves to be credible, repeatable, substantial…everything science can throw at it, then where do you stand?
alaskancamel said,
January 3, 2008 at 11:31 am
Alaskanspawn,
I think you know my answer, but I will put it out there anyway. I would not withdraw my stance if ETS was found indisputably dangerous. I still think it comes down to personal choices and individual freedoms.
alaskanspawn said,
January 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Ya I figured as much. What did you think of the MRI study though? I don’t think you are dodging the question but I’d like to know.
arclightzero said,
January 3, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I have to say that I am, for the most part, with Camel on this one. I still err on the side of freedom of choice. I mean, people know that smoking is bad, yet they do it. It’s a gamble. Will it kill you? No. Can it kill you? You bet. If you look at the millions of smokers out there, what percentage is actually adversely affected and how many still live to be 102?
The same could be said for heavy drinking. It is known to be harmful, yet people gamble with it. Salt, fat, artificial sweeteners… I ate a donut every morning during the week out of habit and enjoyment of the donut. Was it bad for me? Yes. Was I increasing my risk of coronary heart disease? You bet. Was I painfully aware of it every time I took a bite? Yep. But I still chowed down, because damn I love donuts. Sadly, my New Year’s resolution was to cut back to only Fridays (mmm tomorrow morning!) pretty much because I don’t feel like dropping over from clogged arteries at 35. But the choice is still mine.
If ETS were like radiation or some chemical that had a nearly 100% chance of killing you with just about any amount of exposure, I would ban it in a heartbeat. But when it comes to this and so many other things, the poison is in the dose. Of course, in cases like yours, the dose is small because you are highly sensitive. Personally, going to a bar once in a while just leaves me with foul smelling clothing. The doses are different for us, but it still boils down to choice. You and I can choose how much of a dose we are exposed to.
arclightzero said,
January 3, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Ok, I just finished reading the MRI study too, and here’s the problem that I see with it. I think that they speak too soon about their findings before really giving an in-depth analysis.
What caught my attention is that they reference “nearly one thirds” of the people who had high exposure for 10 years or more. That means, let’s say, 30%. But what they don’t tell us are some important things like activity level, additional health issues, past health history etc. The fact that two thirds showed finding that were absolutely contrary to the first third raises more questions. The one that always comes to mind for me is activity level.
When I was in the Navy, I worked with guys who were older than me and smoked more than a pack of cigs a day, yet they could outrun me and do our physical fitness test without getting winded. It is very contrary to assumptions about smokers. It always made me wonder (and I’m speculating here) if high activity levels cleared the lungs and limited the amount of damage done to the lungs. I guess it would be an interesting study since it would seem that, overall, many smokers lead not only a sedentary lifestyle, but a lifestyle high in other libations such as drinking.
I would love to really look at the MRI study in depth and put more of the pieces together.
Is smoking like my donut? Eat a donut a day and lead a sedentary lifestyle and wait for your arteries to crust over completely… Or eat a donut a day and exercise regularly and really cut down on the damage done by the fat… Is it possible? Perhaps. It would be worth looking at though.
alaskanspawn said,
January 3, 2008 at 7:12 pm
So it seems that perhaps both of you were misinterpretting “ban” when I said it. I meant the current status of the smoking ban, not a full on ban. Eating a donut everyday is not like smoking since you are only hurting yourself. ETS, if found to be dangerous would hurt not only you but everyone around you. Including the workers that may or may not be aware of it. It would be very disheartening to hear that you would not care about those around you that were also trying to enjoy their meal.
Pretty soon you would alienate all non-smokers from working or patroning the establishments that allowed smoking, which in a perfect free market would kill the business and further segregate society. I say alienate because as more and more people became aware of the absolute dangers of ETS (if the MRI study proves to be true) they won’t want to take that risk.
So are you both really saying that you REALLY don’t care about those around you and would knowingly cause harm to not just yourself just to save your liberties? That’s really sad, if true. This is how I interpret your answers. That being said, I will gladly withdraw my stance if it is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ETS has no appreciable negative affects on my or anyone elses health. I really don’t think that can happen but you never know.
The MRI study is really preliminary for sure but I’m very curious as to who will pick it up and study further. My guess is the tobacco industry will, if they haven’t already, fund a study to refute the claims.
alaskancamel said,
January 4, 2008 at 11:59 am
Spawn….I am saddend by your ability to miss quote others to advance your claims. ( its almost like the liberals do in the media)
your quote…
Does the owner own his property outright, well as Alaskancamel pointed out…no. Not only does he/she not own the property but he/she has to abide by certain rules in order to “allow” the public to use or enter said premises.
I was speaking about my home, not a public location. Nice twist to further your thoughts, but a little off the mark.
alaskancamel said,
January 4, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Ok, I have been on the road for awhile and haven’t been able to give this my full attention. This may be a long winded one (which you should be used to by now, sorry) but I will try to keep it relatively short. If I miss a topic, sorry, but I will try to touch on as many questions as were asked of me.
Fist, I am not avoiding the report, I have been traveling and haven’t had time to read it yet. I will do that today and get back to you.
Second, would I still smoke in a bar if ETS were proven to be harmful? Absolutely. Your argument against includes how it affects the workers if there not aware of the hazards. What, do they have an IQ of 3? None of us know for sure if there is harm, but with the media coverage out there and the amount of people that do no outside research, most people already think that if you see a cigarette you will die. No one in the United States hasn’t heard the disinformation from the anti freedom movement about the hazards of smoking. Furthermore, the majority of the bar workers are smokers (at least here, I cannot speak for anywhere else) and are annoyed that they cant smoke at work anymore.
Side note… as an Alaska issue, the ban increases the dangers to female smokers exponentially. Think about it. Its 11pm and really dark out. A woman goes out for a smoke and has to be 20 feet away from the door. What drunk psychopath is out there waiting for her? Our winters are long and dark and the crime rate is already on the rise in this small town (not a correlation to the smoking debate, just a comment about Anchorage). This has been a record year for murders, rape, robberies, and other violent crime. If you want to speak about protection for the masses, then you should require safe smoking areas for citizens who want to smoke( I think that would be wrong as well, just trying to follow the nanny state thought process).
Serene environment…. Yes, I was speaking about smoking at home. I have to because there is no place in Anchorage that I can do that in what you call public. When I was in Arkansas 3 years ago and when I was in France last year I had the pleasure of going to a few bars that allowed smoking cigars. What a joy that was. The ventilation was great and I was able to sit and enjoy a great smoke and a great whisky. That was more relaxing than a one hour message. If that venue was offered here, I would go at least once a week to refocus my world and quit being as high strung as this blog makes me (hehe).
The free market doesn’t always work and a time and a place for everything…….If the government got out of all of those places that you said smoking should be banned, this wouldn’t even be a talking point. If a private hospital allowed smoking and nobody showed up, they would have to change there policy. As for all of the other places you mentioned, yes, I would let the business owner decide on each of those locations. At my companies headquarters (I am giving you an easy shot here) smoking is allowed everywhere. If you don’t like the smoke, you have the right to get a job somewhere else. Its as simple as that. And yes, I would Privatize everything and let the free market work.
The internet…..You couldn’t have cited a better example. The internet is as close as we can get to a free market. The politicians are trying to change that as we speak, but what we have works. If we could apply the same principle to everything we do we could then sit in a circle and hold hands singing coombyah (damn, cant spell that one). As for why I keep mentioning it, we have come close. I believe that our founding fathers had the right idea and tried to take us there. When the industrial revolution started and things were on track, socialists derailed the process and sent it into a tail spin that has landed us in the mess we are now in. We almost had it and I would love to see us try and achieve it again.
Final topic for now….should we have everyone vote on every issue. I know you were saying it tongue in cheek, but I would like to address that. Absolutely not. We elect people that we think will represent our interests. That is there job. Not only does the majority not always rule, but it shouldn’t. Ugly example, if the Klan had a majority in a southern state and decided it was ok to lynch people that would obviously be wrong. The majority is not always right.
I again am sorry for the dissertation. I think you have some great thought processes even if I disagree with many of them. Keep up the discussions, that the only way we are going to make a difference in this world.
alaskancamel said,
January 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Damn, I missed one.
My comment about air. You keep saying that tobacco funds these things. My honest question to you is what tobacco? Is RJ Reynolds, Phillip Morris, Lorrilard, or BAT putting out reports on this stuff or funding these studies? I always here that tobacco is doing these things, but have never heard any blame placed on a specific company. My tongue and cheek comment about air funding things is just that, there is nothing backing that. It is an honest question though, you know what I do for a living and you would think that I would have heard about this. Since 1998, I have heard no mention of a specific company funding any reports. That kind of makes me wonder.
alaskanspawn said,
January 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm
So to start with, only have 10 minutes till my next meeting so I’ll make this short. I didn’t misquote you, you said, somewhere else, that no one can own anything since it continues to be taxed. That’s what I was referring to. I think that was in bits and pieces.
Second, you keep quoting liberals. I have no idea why I keep being blamed for thinking of the health of others. For those that want to kill themselves with smoke then go ahead but don’t do it around others, especially if it’s proven that ETS does indeed harm others. It’s absurd to think that you or anyone else has that kind of liberty.
If you follow the money as Arc has pointed out many many times you will find that, what I refer to as “big tobacco”, has funded directly or indirectly studies to reverse any study that adversely affects their bottom line. Big tobacco can be defined as those companies you listed. It really does not take much digging to find that trail. I’m not saying that today’s fight for anti-smoking is not funded by pharm companies, a lot of them are. I’m just saying that, from what I’ve found in the tobacco libraries and other internet sources (don’t have time to list them) there is a ton of evidence the the tobacco companies are out to protect their bottom line. It perfectly understandable but it does bring into question the validity and accuracy of the reports funded by them.
alaskancamel said,
January 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Spawn,
I know you are not a liberal. My new “conversion” to objectivism sort of places everybody out there in that liberal catagory. Not in the sense of the political party, but as in haveing liberal views. May be unfair of me, but I cant really see any other way to label everyone running for president (with a real chance to win) this time as liberal either.
I know you typed that last one on the run, so maybe you will get to it at a later time, but please let me know what companies you find that are actually funding these studies. Following the trails, I cant find it.
alaskancamel said,
January 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The question I have on the BMJ article is the same question I have for most of these studies. They say that there is a 34% increase in the chances of getting heart desease. Are they saying there was a 1%(my made up number just used as an example) chance of getting heart desease without ETS and a 1.34% chance with ETS, or if there was a 1% chance before ETS and a 35% with ETS. My research has found that they always seem to use the first set of numbers. If the chance increases to (again, not the real numbers, just my example) 1.34% why are we all in a panic? I will keep looking.
alaskancamel said,
January 4, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“Fourthly, because people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke eat less fruit and vegetables and this is associated with an increased risk of ischaemic heart disease”
What the hell does that mean? They found a corrolation to ETS and eating less fruit? Thats a new one on me.
alaskanspawn said,
January 4, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I think they are just hinting at some study data they found that smokers tend to eat less fruit and vegetables. I don’t know but I see more and more studies with the word fruit in them…not sure.
arclightzero said,
January 4, 2008 at 7:51 pm
This is true, however it doesn’t change the fact that we choose what we expose ourselves to. People choose to expose themselves to ETS. That is why I would support a ban on smoking in public spaces as opposed to private property. In fact, I would go so far as to question why somebody would have to step outside a bar and smoke on public land where anybody could be exposed to ETS while the people in the bar would be there by choice.
I do care. I am very conscious about my [cigar] smoking and would never smoke somewhere where bystanders would be affected. But on the other hand, I regularly smoke in cigar shops, and even if no-smokers come in to buy memorabilia or boxes (which happens quite regularly) I would not pt out my cigar until they left. They came in on their own accord. I am on the fence when it comes to restaurants. I have always liked the idea of segregated smoking areas unless a certain (low) percentage of revenue come food as opposed to alcohol.
arclightzero said,
January 4, 2008 at 8:30 pm
As a side note, if you get bored, you can do some statistical fact finding.
I spent some time on this site looking at hospital discharge data for states with smoking bans and looked for drops in heart disease. Interestingly I couldn’t find any notable drops, and in some cases the number actually increased, which makes it difficult to correlate declines in heart disease as a result of smoking bans.
http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/
alaskanspawn said,
January 4, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I retract my statement about not caring then and I applaud your discretion when smoking around people. Alaskancamel also is very good about not smoking around me, for the most part :-).
There was a time when we were going to pick up a buddy in Haines, AK. It’s a 13 hour, one way, drive in a blistering snow storm at night. Camel was smoking his cigars as we listened to Led Zeplin which was all fine and dandy except for the fact I was driving at the time. The long hours, we were on our way back so prolly 20 hours being awake, and it was still snowing and it was night again and the smoke was getting to me…suddenly I was confronted with a flatbed truck carrying christmas trees. It came out of nowhere and freaked me out. Actually, the truck did not exist, I was halucinating (luckily) hehe. Anyway, the general consensus was it was time for me to stop driving. I blame it on the smoke playing tricks on my eyes but Camel will swear it was the 20 hours hard driving with no sleep.
Not everyone is as considerate as you 2 so I will continue these conversations in the interest of public health. I had an experience once at a restaurant bar where I guy slid up next to my wife and I at the bar and proceeded to literally blow smoke in my face…he was completely oblivious to what he was doing. Well after explaining to him how much of an ass he was being he apologized and backed off. Having to walk through the smoke at the doorways is really annoying but so much better than having to sit in it while trying to enjoy a drink waiting for my table.
Most smokers have no clue about their surroundings and just seem to blow their smoke any which way. Can you or anyone explain to me the difference between public and private property, with regards to restaurants and bars? I have explained what MN thinks it is and how it’s stated in the smoking ban but you (et al) believe it to be different. Camel, another friend, and I have had this converstion for hours so I know it’s highly disputed.
alaskanspawn said,
January 4, 2008 at 9:51 pm
So knowing smoking bans are relatively recent I would expect the stats you mentioned to actually increase until maybe 10-15 years go by, maybe even longer, as the benefits of smoking bans take hold. It was a side point all along: do we wait until ETS is proven harmful or do we err on the side of caution (in this case only! no banning trans fat, that’s just silly) and ban smoking in public places (as I and MN define it)?
Thomas Laprade said,
January 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Why does our “tolerent” society let anti-smoking zealots run amok??
By Betsy Hart (a well known columnist)
This week a place called a “tobacco bar”, Marshall McGeary Tobacco Artisans, was all over Chicago and national news.
Like other major cities, Chicago has recently gone “smoke-free” in most public places of any kind. But there is a place that’s exempt. The tobacco bar is set up as a tobacco manufacturer (owned by tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds) and it’s free from the anti-smoking law.
Customers actually chose from loose tobacco blends, and an expensive pack of cigarettes is then made to the customer’s order. Then, patrons can puff away right there inside a closed space, and legally. Scandalous.
Is it possible that the anti-smoking do-gooders will leave such folks alone? After all, the adult smokers are there freely of their own accord, choosing
to partake in a legal substance, and not bothering anyone else.
No way. No sooner did news stories of the new establishment surface than do-gooders were vowing to stamp out the loophole that allows such “treachery.”
(Somehow, I think if it were discovered the place was a gay men’s bathhouse. many of these same folks would be strangely quiet instead.)
I’m not a smoker. So I won’t be going to the tobacco bar.
But where does this Taliban-like anti-smokers campaign come from? It can’t really be this stuff about second-hand smoke. The famous 1992 Environment Protection Agency study showing a casual relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer was so roundly debunked as junk science it was declared “null and void” by a federal judge.
Sure, second-hand smoke can be annoying, and it can’t be healthy. But, if you relegate smokers to their own enclosed space, who can object?? The anti-smoking Taliban, of course.
We are a culture that has been conditioned that we must make no value judgments about anything that really matters. Adultery, divorce, addictions,things that are profoundly destructive to our young people, behaviours that involve moral choices, these things are all off the table. With few exceptions, we don’t legally try to limit such things.
And, if the fellow next door leaves his family for a series of girlfriends, or the mom leaves to “find herself,” we are not to offer a value judgment.
But if after the no-fault divorce the departed parent comes to pick up the children and is smoking a cigarette, watch out, the “Taliban” will smugly denounce that mom or dad as a “bad parent.”
We are, at our core, moral beings. We want to make appropriate moral value judgments. But in our culture we no longer dare do so.
So, enter the self-righteous anti-smoking Taliban. Smoking is the stand-in,the scapegoat.It’s the one thing, an easy thing, we can dump on.
It requires no personal sacrifice. We can carelessly condemn smokers, literally run them out of town and feel delicious about ourselves.
We shouldn’t be surprised, then that there is an inverse relationship between our increasingly “tolerant” culture– and our anti-smoking zealotry
–Scripps Howard News
[Formatting edited by Arclightzero - no other changes made]
Thomas Laprade said,
January 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Desire versus rights
When debating the pros and cons of smoking bans, we need to ask whether it makes sense to protect and defend private individuals’ rights to their property. If we agree that private property rights should be protected, then we should make a clear distinction between private property and public property.
Omitting legal jargon and using common sense, private property belongs to a private owner, and public property belongs to the public or to some government entity that represents the interests of the general public.
Those who favor smoking bans prefer to consider bars and restaurants to be public property simply because the public is invited to visit those establishments. However, opponents of smoking bans recognize that the invitations to the public are by the graces of the private owners, and the property remains private property.
Let’s consider for a moment that you own a home and that you consider your home to be your private property. Do you give up your private property rights when you tell someone to, “Drop by any time?” What if you also tell that person to, “Bring some other folks along?”
Have you just issued a standing invitation to the public? Is your home no longer private and now considered to be public property? Where do we draw the line?
There is confusion between public property and private property primarily because some people, such as anti-smoking proponents, want to elevate their desires to the level of being legal rights. They choose to ignore what should be a clear distinction between private and public property so they can pretend that private businesses are actually owned by the public, thereby giving the public the right to control the use of the property while preventing the true property owner from controlling the use of his own property. Many business owners who take the risks and pay the price of ownership of their business property are suffering in areas of the country where smoking bans have been put into force. Those who promote smoking bans fail to see (or don’t care) that their desires for sweeping smoke free environments are causing hardships for honest, hard-working people and their families. They fail to see (or don’t care) that their desires should be secondary to the rights of others.
Those supporting smoking bans know that they have the option of not supporting businesses that allow smoking. They know that they may patronize businesses that choose to ban smoking. But that is not enough for them. Do they not recognize the importance of respecting people’s right to control their own property? Do they not recognize the value of freedom?
The desires of anti-smoking groups should not take precedence over the rights of private citizens. When one person’s desires are allowed to trump
another person’s rights, then all our rights can easily be swept away, and we have no protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Thomas Laprade
[Formatting edited by Arclightzero - no other changes made]
Thomas Laprade said,
January 5, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation - from sea to sea- 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 neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, 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 behaviour.
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 favourite 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.
We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour. They are in office to serve us, not vice- versa.
Thomas Laprade
[Formatting edited by Arclightzero - no other changes made]
Ken Hill said,
January 5, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick
Government’s that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. They are not using science as their competent guide into the future. Instead they use the deep festering envy of politicized environmentalists (those unable to compete on a level playing field) to revisit remnants of the dark ages. The profound statement of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand echoes the truth that smothers us, “Today, we live in the age of envy.”
I am a life-long non-smoker, who has lost the four most precious people in my life. Cancer was the effect, a consequence, but not the cause. Yet, I will not help to propagandize health into dictatorial policy through anti-smoking. I do not wish to repeat the 1930’s, 1940’s. Do you?
Exactly how can our government “create a healthier society for all” when they betray the smoker’s sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer-employee relationships, upheave their family life, and undermind their efficacy by alienating them from their own human nature?
This destructive mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker’s to long-term emotional and mental disorders, thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government’s suffocating negative influence while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decisions. Government aggression will severely jeopardize each young person’s struggle to form a necessary sense of self-confidence. This fragile process is usually a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
In reality, our government lacks the knowledge of the trigger mechanism that sets off most cancers or most other major diseases to then become a critical danger for human beings. It is not smoking, nor second-hand smoke. Then why does government pathetically use smoker’s as their scapegoat, perhaps they require an example in order to intimidate other industries?
Chicken Littleism is no longer a silly joke. It is now a snarling threat. Stamp out politicized environmentalism, not cigarettes.
alaskanspawn said,
January 5, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’m pretty sure no one here is stamping out cigarettes. Not even me. I will pick up the fight for smokers if the government goes too far and in fact I have heard of the no smoking around kids and in certain outdoor areas already happening. If you want to endanger your own kids, go right ahead (sounds really ridiculous but whatever). Smoking outside is completely fine with me, it is annoying to see how rude they are but whatever. The big tobacco companies have been filling your ears with those exact arguments (Thomas and Ken) since the early 70’s. I have to say it’s almost word for word.
The public vs. private argument, Thomas, is flawed. My home is my home and is considered private as I’ve stated before. Other’s cannot enter without my expressed permission <– pay attention to that statement. Restaurants, bars, etc.. are privately owned but do not require expressed permission to enter but rather it’s assumed since it is open to the public, used by the public, and regulated by the government. I don’t recall ever having to ask permission to enter any restaurant. In most cases the land the bar or restaurant is on is deemed for commercial use only which means you couldn’t build a private home on it anyway.
I appreciate your concerns for civil liberties but as I’ve stated before civil liberties do not equal the right to do whatever you want. That would be complete anarchy.
There has been a lot of political positioning in this battle of late. There’s bound to be more in the next few years but lets stay away from scare tactics (al la big tobacco saying it will landslide all the way to prohibition) and stick to the facts as they are today. I am fully against complete bans even though they exist (AK dry villages). If you would like to discuss complete bans I wouldn’t think this is the right post. To me this argument is about common decency (refer to my story of the ahole blowing smoke at my wife and I). If I can’t rely on common decency I see no other alternative than to go along with the state by state bans of smoking in public places.
alaskanspawn said,
January 5, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Rather than assumed permission I should say implied. I think that’s a better word to describe it.
Where Do You Stand, Wisconsin? The Smoking Ban Resurfaces « Pro Patria said,
January 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm
[...] started phase one by sending out email letters, and since that didn’t gain me much I am now sending out hard copies of my letter along with [...]
arclightzero said,
January 9, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Spawn, here is the problem as I see it: What is too far? Something I have been pondering lately is why the anti-smoking movement has this all-or-nothing mentality? They do not want any compromises or exceptions at all.
I concede that banning smoking in true public spaces makes sense, and I might even accept a ban in restaurants that derive more than 50% of their revenue from food (i.e. most any restaurant that caters to families or casual dining). But why not allow bar and tavern owners the option to allow smoking or not?
Or here’s another proposition: Why not allow cities or counties the freedom to choose? Why should the state have final say? I know the answer the states use; that being that they want things to be “fair” because if one county goes smoke-free and another doesn’t, it’s not “fair” to businesses in the smoke-free counties… Which is a ridiculous argument but one I heard all the time in Minnesota…
AlaskanAmber said,
January 9, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The argument of just let the cities choose is irrelevent in a democracy. At what level these decisions are decided isn’t debatable, you elected folks at every level, and they made these decisions. Or in other cases, people voted through initiative. If bans passed, it’s because of democracy. Why do you hate democracy?
AlaskanAmber said,
January 9, 2008 at 11:54 pm
These smoking bans are quite disturbing to me, I mean, smokers are a big revenue source for governments. If you ban smokes, who’s gonna make up that revenue shortfall? Not me, I just spend $400 for a kegerator! I’m broke!
I finally realized the solution to all this isn’t to mass tax the smokers, it’s to profit from them individually! We all know someone who’d digging an early grave, right? A well-timed life insurance policy taken out on these friends could really help the bottom line! And what friend wouldn’t want to give me, say, $500,000 upon their unfortunate demise. What do you say, Camel guy!
alaskancamel said,
January 10, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Ah, the tongue and cheek guy…how exciting.
I have said before (not sure how far back you have read) that majority shouldn’t always rule. (If the Klan got really big in a city should they be allowed to have lynchings because the majority wants them? of course not)
There are some basic rights we should all have. Smokers don’t have any rights on the subject and neither do non-smokers. Business owners should have the right to ownership and be allowed to do whatever legal activity they chose to do on their private property. (see other arguments about private and public property) Smoking bans do hurt the bottom line of some businesses. The government shouldn’t be interfering with that.
As for you being broke (if this is who I think it is) you government employees are never broke.
alaskanspawn said,
January 10, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Now, now. Let’s not be labeling people “government” employees lest you be called out for who you work for :-).
alaskancamel said,
January 10, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I am proud of working for RJ Reynolds. If I could paint my car like a giant Camel, I would.
:o)
arclightzero said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:00 pm
That is not entirely true. In a situation like this, you might have a number of cities or counties that allow smoking, but when the state steps in and blankets the whole state, it’s done. The choice has now been made for them. You don’t need a 100% consensus to pass a smoking ban in the state legislature. In the case of Wisconsin, there are a select few large, urban areas that think they run the whole state. Do you have any idea how many smokers we have out here in the sticks who would not be happy with a smoking ban? If Madison, Milwaukee and the other liberal cesspools in this state want to ban smoking in their areas, that’s fine but to allow those people to dictate how the whole state is run is absurd. We didn’t elect those fools, but if us rural-types can’t get a majority vote in the legislature, we’re screwed.
arclightzero said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:03 pm
The tax thing is always interesting. Camel did the math once before, and I did the math for Wisconsin. There are literally hundreds of millions of dollars (almost a billion in Wisconsin) of tax dollars at stake here. If the idiot governor and his pawns succeed in their goal of crushing out smoking, where will that billion dollars come from? You can’t tell me that they will adjust the budget to make up for the loss. No way. They will adjust the taxes elsewhere to make up for the loss.
arclightzero said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Camel, you work for RJ Reynolds? That’s cool! I’m thrilled that you’re proud to work for them. People should take pride in the company they work for. Few things piss me off more than people who are embarrassed by their employer and make excuses as to why they work there.
alaskanspawn said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I’m interested in hearing more of your “fair” argument Ryan. I heard a lot of that talk in MN during the start of the bans. I understand the argument as saying that the counties that banned smoking were at a disadvantage because the smokers would just go “across the street”. This is obviously not fair. In more rural states such as WI, this might not be a problem and a county by county ban might work…each situation should be looked at differently.
While I enjoyed the smoking ban in the larger counties here, I was completely against the ban until it was state-wide.
alaskanspawn said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Btw, I wasn’t meaning you shouldn’t be proud for who you work for Camel, it’s just that I thought you mentioned that you couldn’t enter into discussions like these by the rules of your company. Maybe I was wrong.
I find it interesting that my 2 best friends work in such diverse fields, Camel for RJR, Alaskanamber (mmmmm I miss that beer)for the government, and myself for Medtronic (which I am very proud of). Being an ex-EMT you might more easily understand where I’m coming from.
arclightzero said,
January 11, 2008 at 6:58 am
Ok, fair… Well, here’s my take on “fair.” People get pissed when the free market is allowed to work. In the case of smoking bans, the free market is removed from the equation - even though proponents of bans say that they are doing what the majority wants them to do.
If this were the case, if one county went smoke-free and another didn’t, the county that went smoke free should see a surge in business from all the people who supposedly wanted a ban so they could go out and enjoy a beer without being exposed to smoke. However, that isn’t the case, is it? When one county goes smoke free and a neighbor doesn’t, the county that didn’t sees a massive surge in business and the businesses in the county with the ban start hurting.
So is it “fair” to have the state come in and blanket the state and take away something that people obviously want so that the businesses that were hurt when individual cities or counties went smoke free aren’t getting hurt?
What happened to all of the claims that the businesses would see a surge in business as more people go out because places are smoke free? Shouldn’t the opposite problem be seen if a county or city goes smoke free, and the pro-smoking county see a severe drop in business?
If the free market didn’t want smoking, they would drive the businesses in the pro-smoking county out of business and force the county to go smoke-free to save the business environment. However, exactly the opposite happened, but instead of being logical about it, the state just came in and said you’re all going smoke free.
I just don’t see how that is being “fair.”
alaskancamel said,
January 11, 2008 at 10:10 am
I am allowed to enter the conversations, I just cant speak for the company. That is why my very first post said that in no way do my comments reflect that of my company or my industry. Just covering my butt. :o)
gimper30 said,
January 14, 2008 at 10:39 am
Arclightzero….Amen!
AlaskanAmber said,
January 16, 2008 at 12:51 am
Saying there’s going to be an economic cost either way is ludicrous. Show me a town where there’s been an impact either way on bars because of smoking bans. It’s always anecdotal or explained by other reasons. The fact is most people go to bars to be social or meet people. They’re not going to stop these basic human functions because they can’t smoke their cancer stick. Besides, should an industry (tobacco) that was literally born on lies and propaganda complain when the anti-smoking side uses these same tools effectively? Cry me a river.
alaskancamel said,
January 16, 2008 at 11:38 am
Amber, take a drive down the coast and see if there was any affect. The Turnagain house is up for sale, their reason loss of business due to the ban. The Indian House closed its doors 6 weeks early, their reason, loss of business due to the ban. The Bradly House is still open, but in speaking to the waitresses, they have said that their tips are down almost 50% and the business is struggling. Again, they site all of this is due to the ban.
I have only cited three businesses that have already been hurt by this. Granted, I did not cite every establishment in Anchorage, but those that I have spoken to have definitely seen an impact.
Ryan said,
January 17, 2008 at 5:22 am
Amber, I have loads of facts and figures regarding the serious post-ban economic impact on bars and taverns. The data I have comes from non-smoking related sources too (like tavern leagues, liquor boards etc), so I would consider it to be objective. The fact of the matter is that I have yet to find a report that actually cites any positive economic impact from bans other than pre-ban projections by the anti-smoking crowd who always seem to claim that establishments will see surges in new business as families and non-smokers come out of the woodwork once places go smoke free.
The big lie is that, since there are already more smoke-free establishments than smoking establishments, where do they think theses new people are going to come from? The fact of the matter is that they are already going out! It’s not as if they will mysteriously multiply and double the population of people going out to these places. Smoking bans simply cut people out of the equation. They don’t add in more.
alaskanspawn said,
January 19, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I tell you what, those reports citing smoking as the reason for closing are at the very least suspect. Unfortunately I don’t have too much time to go into it but let’s just take Hopps in Maple Grove for instance. They cite the smoking ban for the close but everyone else even that damn seafood place next door are still open. I used to frequent Hopps a ton, loved it and was sorry to see it go (as a matter of fact, that story that I told of the rude ass guy blowing smoke in my face was in that restaurant).
The food that normally was outstanding had started to go downhill. The steaks were bland and the scallops were uninspired (our 2 favorite dishes). I have to doubt that smoking was the reason for the close no matter what the owner says. It’s a good excuse but everytime I went there I had to wait for a seat right up until the end.
Camel, I never did get to eat at the Turnagain House though my parents tended to go there for anniversaries. I know it was on the upper end of the restaurant scale so perhaps the food went downhill…similar to Hopps. I can’t believe smokers kept the place open though I’m a little less sure about that.
Bottom line, if just one restaurant claims the smoking ban and is lying then the whole list is suspect.
Pam said,
January 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm
LOG ON AND SIGN OUR NATIONWIDE PETITION AT
http://WWW.OPPONENTSOFOHIOBANS.COM
“Opponents of Ohio Bans” is circulating a nationwide petition seeking a Congressional Hearing into the lies, deceit and corruption behind smoking bans
• Ohio bars & restaurants are closing BY THE HUNDREDS!
• Anhueser Busch sales to 4 large Ohio cities are down 7.8% since the ban (draft beer down 8.1%) while sales to carry outs & drive-thrus are up 1.7%. People stay home (and DRINK and SMOKE at home). That’s a huge loss to the distributors and an even more devastating loss to Ohio business owners. Sales & Use Taxes for the last half of 2007 will prove to have dropped dramatically!
• Ohio Job & Family Services posted a big loss of jobs in the hospitality & leisure industry instead of the even larger projected growth.
• Ohio is leading the U.S. foreclosure rates (obviously not totally to blame on Ohio’s smoking ban)
All because of smoking bans based on lies and corruption.
The propaganda SmokeFreeOhio, AKA the American Cancer Society, spewed to get voters to pass Issue 5 in Ohio was “Smoke-free policies do not harm business” (the last of the 5 bullets in the “Explanation and Argument in Support of Issue 5) THEY LIED!!
The lies, deceit and corruption continue:
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paid the ACS, ALA and AHA, etc. $99 million SO FAR for smoking bans. Why? Because RWJF is JOHNSON & JOHNSON who bought Pfizer OTC to get Nicorette in June 2006 and promised a per-share gain BY 2009. Then, they PAID the ACS almost $1 million to market nicotine replacement therapies. We are OUTRAGED that policies are driven by this pharmaceutical company FOR THEIR GAIN. How about a $75,000 “grant” to build grassroots support for an increased tobacco tax to fund tobacco cessation programs… or the $71,120 “grant” to pursue policy change to MANDATE coverage of smoking cessation services by Medicaid (grant recipient: American Cancer Society). Johnson & Johnson PAID for smoking bans, PAID to corner the market on the smoking cessation drugs, PAID the ACS to market their drugs and programs, PAID the ACS to lobby to have Medicaid pay for their products and PAID to have tobacco taxes increased to fund tobacco cessation programs. This has to stop. This is corruption. Johnson & Johnson makes money and we lose our businesses and our Constitutional Rights? (Private Property, to name one)
The real cancer is the smoking bans and it’s a nationwide disease. Moreover, we understand that the real cancer is the lies, deceit and corruption behind the bans. The real cancer is the hatred the antis have created towards the smokers. The real deaths are our businesses and jobs (and homes). The real statistics are the people who huddle outside in the freezing weather to smoke a legal product. The real statistics are the people who are beaten and/or robbed when the step outside of their safe place of employment. The real cancer is that our country’s policies are now made by lobbyists, pharmaceutical companies and “foundations” (AKA pharmaceutical companies). We have asked that the following areas be investigated:
1. Smoking bans are based on “selected” and “cherry picked” studies. Studies that show no causal relationship are either ignored, discredited or the author(s) discredited (sometimes to the point of professional ruination)
2. Ex-Surgeon General Carmona’s 2006 Report
3. The money behind the bans – the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
4. Those who profit
5. Who are the 53,000?
6. Why are total bans the law when we have OSHA whose job it is to protect all workers?
7. Global corruption (Congress must investigate the U.S. involvement)
8. Why are there no lifetime lim