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
on December 27, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 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!
on December 28, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 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
on December 28, 2007 on 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.
on December 28, 2007 on 10:18 pm
Hmm, chemtrails sounds a bit far fetched and very much like a conspiracy theory.
on December 29, 2007 on 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
on December 29, 2007 on 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
on December 30, 2007 on 1:29 am
[...] Ryan vs. the Anti-Smoking Movement [...]
on December 30, 2007 on 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.
on December 30, 2007 on 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.
on December 31, 2007 on 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?
on December 31, 2007 on 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.
)
on December 31, 2007 on 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.
on January 1, 2008 on 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”.
on January 1, 2008 on 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.
on January 1, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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?
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 1:13 pm
link… http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/973
on January 2, 2008 on 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!!!!!!!
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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?
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 2, 2008 on 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?
on January 2, 2008 on 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.
on January 3, 2008 on 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?
on January 3, 2008 on 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.
on January 3, 2008 on 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.
on January 3, 2008 on 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.
on January 3, 2008 on 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.
on January 3, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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/
on January 4, 2008 on 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.
on January 4, 2008 on 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)?
on January 5, 2008 on 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]
on January 5, 2008 on 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]
on January 5, 2008 on 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]
on January 5, 2008 on 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.
on January 5, 2008 on 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.
on January 5, 2008 on 9:35 pm
Rather than assumed permission I should say implied. I think that’s a better word to describe it.
on January 9, 2008 on 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 [...]
on January 9, 2008 on 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…
on January 9, 2008 on 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?
on January 9, 2008 on 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!
on January 10, 2008 on 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.
on January 10, 2008 on 3:18 pm
Now, now. Let’s not be labeling people “government” employees lest you be called out for who you work for
.
on January 10, 2008 on 6:35 pm
I am proud of working for RJ Reynolds. If I could paint my car like a giant Camel, I would.
on January 10, 2008 on 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.
on January 10, 2008 on 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.
on January 10, 2008 on 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.
on January 10, 2008 on 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.
on January 10, 2008 on 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.
on January 11, 2008 on 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.”
on January 11, 2008 on 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.
)
on January 14, 2008 on 10:39 am
Arclightzero….Amen!
on January 16, 2008 on 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.
on January 16, 2008 on 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.
on January 17, 2008 on 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.
on January 19, 2008 on 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.
on January 19, 2008 on 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 limits placed on donations from foundations?
We are requesting a Congressional Hearing into these lies and corruption. As American citizens and American business owners, we deserve an investigation to uncover the truth. Since this is a nationwide problem, we’ve initiated a nationwide petition. You can view all our supporting documentation at:
http://opponentsofohiobans.com/onlinepetition.aspx
This is America. We are NOT going to be run by lobbyists or pharmaceutical companies! Nor will we be lied to or swindled out of our Constitution.
on January 19, 2008 on 9:42 pm
EEK! Do you work for one of the major tobacco companies or did you just plagiarize one of their websites? Cherry picked reports? Discredited scientists? Seriously? Look, I know there are a ton of arguments listed on this blog alone, far too many to read sometimes but all of this has been gone over many times.
Even my own posts are getting further apart as I try to search for new arguments. Going over the same ole’ tobacco propaganda is tiresome. Btw, I think everyone agrees here that both sides are using dirty tactics, well even if they don’t believe it it’s still true. The fact of the matter is that ETS is a problem and choice is not a solution unless we live in a free market…we don’t (at least not by definition). Hell, a government for the people and by the people doesn’t even exist, it should, but that’s not the reality.
on January 20, 2008 on 7:49 pm
Thanks for the info, Pam. I linked up to your petition as well.
Spawn, sadly most people don’t realize that the anti-smoking movement isn’t quite as noble and benign as they are generally perceived to be. While everything smokers or tobacco companies say is scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb, most people accept the anti arguments on face value.
Granted both sides could use some lessons in tact and accurate presentation of facts and figures, but getting both sides’ debates out there is important in the decision making process.
on January 25, 2008 on 6:04 pm
I hate to keep saying this, but the only “big tobacco” that is out there misleading anyone is Philip Morris because they want the FDA to regulate tobacco so they can have a government based monopoly. Saying the lies of the tobacco companies should have gone out in the late 90’s when they were forced to quit talking about there products….wait….is that a free speach issue….oh well.
on January 25, 2008 on 6:09 pm
Oh yeah,
btw…I love the Turnigan house and the food didnt decline. The decline happened the week of the ban and they just couldnt stay afloat.
on January 25, 2008 on 6:13 pm
As to Ambers post, I would like to see how the tobacco industry was founded on lies. The truth of the matter, is the anti tobacco industry is founded on lies and the tobacco industry has become so afraid of litigation that they no longer are willing to support their products. The government and the fear mongers have taken away one of the basic prindiples of business and tried unsuccessfully to drive an entire industry out of business.
on January 28, 2008 on 7:52 pm
you bring up a very good point, and something I haven’t thought about for a long time. How is it that the freedom of speech applies to raving lunatics and hate mongering assholes, but not to tobacco companies?? How in the hell does that make any sense?
I don’t get it. I just don’t. The tobacco companies and the smokers have been quietly and somewhat nicely conceding their rights and freedoms over the years, only to have the antis and activists demand more time and again. It just pisses me off to no end!
on January 31, 2008 on 3:22 pm
All right already – lets go public, how many have sent letters to state reps/sen? How many have sent their own letters to governor? How many of you have signed the petition at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopthewiban?e
Here’s my letter to the editor published in Baraboo’s News Republic – lets get OUT there and fight!
Dear Editor:
What do private pilots, race car drivers, snowmobilers, ATV riders, and jet skiers have in common with smokers? We all choose to pursue potentially dangerous activities that pollute the environment. The recreational polluters are taxed at 5 -6% (plus license and fees) and are given government supported airports, traffic controllers, auditoriums, public trails and waterways where they are allowed to continue their polluting activities. Smokers, however, are taxed at 100% (plus surcharges on everything from insurance to rent) and the government wants to ban us – not just from government controlled venues but also from privately owned businesses!
This is fair and equal taxation? Maybe all nonessential polluting activities should be banned? Taxed the same? The government’s bureaucrats could determine what is and is not an essential and healthful activity and establish taxes and restrictions that would “discourage” such activities? As the Sauk County Coordinator of the Tobacco Free Coalition says “Sometimes a hit in the pocket is what it takes to change our habits.” Do you really want your government to use taxes/restrictions to change YOUR habits???
Think it can’t happen? One of the rationalizations used by our Big Brother bureaucrats to justify the confiscatory cigarette tax is to pay for public health costs to “treat” smokers. OK – then how about a tax on soda pop to pay for dental care? Already proposed. But will it stop there? Next will be a tax on all nutritionally deficient, high calorie, sugar laden foods to pay for diabetes and obesity treatment.
A tax on video games to pay for treating 17 year old criminals as juveniles? Already proposed. Hey – maybe increasing taxes on guns/amo could be used to cover prison costs?
Or how about increasing the beer/booze tax to treat the effects of alcohol? Already proposed. And hey, while they’re at it they just might figure that banning drinking in all public/private venues would go a long way to reducing drunk driving! (To say nothing of increasing the profits of the drug companies by giving them a whole new market to peddle their tranquilizers/soma to.)
We are already over taxed on every dime of income we earn and every purchase that the bureaucrats deem “nonessential” – do we really want to give Big Brother the right to selectively tax our “habits” and choice of activities too? Taxes used to modify citizens’ behaviors/habits are inherently unfair – as the rich will still have the freedom to choose how to live their lives – they can afford the “hit in the pocket”.
We once had a Republic where ALL were entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. We are quickly turning into a Fascist state where “We the People” – poor/middle class citizens – are taxed into submission by government dictates for “our own good” in the name of “Public Health”.
Sincerely yours,
Louise Dotter
on January 31, 2008 on 11:27 pm
Louise, I like your arguments but all you’ve really done is compare smoking to other activities which don’t relate…at least not closely enough to be of any consequence. I think a better analogy, if not overused, is that a smoking section is a restaurant or bar is like having a peeing section in the local public pool.
If you want to fight the over taxation of cigarettes, go right ahead. That’s perfectly legit and understandable.
Camel, I have a really hard time believing that the Turnagain House was kept alive by smokers. Even if it was true, it seems that something had changed…almost as if your “free market” deemed that it close. If only smokers were keeping it open then it was doomed to close anyway. It sounds way too similar to the Hops restaurant here in Maple Grove. Every other restaurant has had no problem staying open but they close due to the smoking ban? Give me a break…sounds like the owner was looking for a decent excuse. Never mind that the food had become less than acceptable. The point is, people like to have excuses for bad things happening. Perhaps Hops or the Turnagain House were on the decline and just barely hanging in there. The ban may have been the convenient nail in the coffin (heh, no pun intended) but it certainly wasn’t the reason for the decline.
Come on people…choose your battles wisely. Smoking is bad for those around you, drinking a pop is not. Tax alcohol if you want equality though somehow I don’t think that would satisfy you all.
on February 4, 2008 on 12:47 pm
Interesting argument….
“almost as if your “free market” deemed that it close. If only smokers were keeping it open then it was doomed to close anyway.”
That would be the exact opposite of an argument as far as I can tell. The free market was keeping it open by allowing a place where smokers could come together and enjoy each others company. The government interfeared with that free market and it shut down. I cant quite figure out how you dont see the infringment.
on February 4, 2008 on 9:58 pm
camel—it is simple…spawn does not want to “see” anything that does not fit into his little world where he will die if someone blows smoke in his face…but he is not alone…institutional propaganda has convinced way too many people that smokers are evil people who enjoy an evil thing…forget truth and liberty when the end justifies the means
on February 5, 2008 on 6:56 am
Well, we won’t be too rough on Spawn because we like him despite his agitating view on smoking bans
The fact remains that most anti-smoking troopers try to lay claims that smoking bans make things “fair” and equal for businesses which is a complete canard.
Fairness and equality don’t exist in business. If it did, why would you even have businesses? You wouldn’t have competition. You wouldn’t have any reason to make a better product or offer better service.
To achieve fairness and equality, you have to be willing to give up a portion of your freedom and basic rights to an authority who then establishes a “level field” at the expense of liberty and market choice.
It’s an oppressive force, and I can’t grasp why we – as a supposedly free society – would willingly go down that path?
on February 5, 2008 on 8:42 am
Ok, for the last time…I am not a pawn of the anti-smoking movement. I have been involved with smoking cessation in one form or another since I was a small child, long before this was an issue. I used to put no puffin (you know, the big red circle with a line through it and a puffin in the middle) signs on my parents front door at thanksgiving to let my own grandmother know smoking was not welcome at our house. She, of course, thought it was absurd that a 10 year old would do something like that. But she was quite old fashioned, the kind of old fashioned that dictated that she get her hair “done up” every day. The kind of old fashioned that thought smoking was glamorous. The kind of old fashioned that killed her in the end from toungue and throat cancer.
You get it? I’m not saying you can’t kill yourself with your smokes, just don’t do it around me and subject me or my family to that indignity.
Oh, and thanks Ryan…I think hehe. After all, if it wasn’t for me who would you argue with?
on February 5, 2008 on 8:46 am
Damn, forgot to get to the free market thing…all doped up on medicine today making me kind of loopy.
So Camel, are you saying that smokers really were the only thing keeping the Turnagain House open? Please correct me if I read that wrong. My parents used to frequent that restaurant, it was also one of their favorite places. I don’t know why they stopped going but perhaps you can ask my Mom next time she does your hair…if she’s not too expensive for you
. Smokers alone can not keep a restaurant going, especially one like the Turnagain House. If indeed people got tired of the smoke, Alaska is decidedly anti-smoking btw (not just in law but in general) then I would say that the free market did deem that it shut down. Right?
on February 5, 2008 on 9:48 am
You say that smokers alone can not keep a resturant open? Bradly House is a smokers only resturnat. The non smoking section was….ok there wasnt one. They did very well and were always booked solid. Now, reservations are no longer needed. It is still somewhat busy, the food is great, but it does not have the client base that it catered to in the begining.
Furthermore, I have to disagree with you on how anti smoking Alaska is. We have the highest smoking rate in the entire United States. The problem is that more than 50% of the populace works for the government and only 30% (on a really good year) turn out to vote. The majority all of the sudden becomes a real small number deciding things for everybody else.
(Have to run errands, I will further this discussion later)
on February 5, 2008 on 11:59 am
Do you guys all remember the report that states that health concerns for smokers were mainly due to their diet? Someone quoted from that a while back. Did you all know that that report also stated that smokers were generally comprised of…what was it…I think it said something to the effect of the poor and/or lower standard of living.
Are you smokers going to stand for that?
So, I’ve never heard of the Bradly House…not surprising though. I still stand by my principles or policy as this situation seems to fit. If you are all about smoking and your only clientele are smokers then there is no issue. Tobacco/cigar shops should be allowed to smoke inside. The Bradly House, as long as it was advertised as a “smokers only” restaurant, no issues. This is akin to the private clubs amendment I think should be enacted. If you privatize and sell memberships you should be free to set the rules of that club. You would then be subject to all rules and regulations of private clubs, let’s not have another boy scouts issue.
Sorry, I’ve not seen the stats on Alaska smoking but my personal experiences were what I was going on. Growing up, only the stoners and goth smoked…across the street from school if you recall. After meeting people here in Minnesota I was shocked that that small demographic was not the only young smokers. It permeated all demographics from cool kids, jocks, rich kids, etc… To me, that’s a huge difference and a tell tale sign of the acceptance of smoking. So I retract my Alaska smoking statement if that was in error, I’ve never looked at those statistics.
on February 5, 2008 on 12:17 pm
ryan….be careful how tolerant you are of spawn..methinks he doth protest too much..he seems to be of the ilk of most antis–give him an inch and he’ll take a mile…antis are not looking for tolerance or compromise…they are convinced they are 100% in the right…allowing business owners to make their own decisions regarding smoking is simply not acceptable…some call this the Tyrrany of the Majority—my way or the highway…all teehees aside, spawn cannot be argued or reasoned with
on February 5, 2008 on 4:23 pm
Meh, gimper. I am the minority here, what do you have to worry about?
on February 5, 2008 on 5:52 pm
I’ve heard worse. It sounds like a tactic being used to try to reduce or downplay the “human” aspect. After all, if you can convince people that the only people being negatively affected are a bunch of backwoods rednecks, you stand a better chance of rallying unchallenged support.
on February 8, 2008 on 12:37 pm
Great discussion here! I found this blog via a link from the Smokers’ Club newsletter. I’ve read all the comments and am totally impressed with the level of civility here. Now on to my comments.
I won’t bore you all by repeating what has already been said here dozens of times. I will, however bring up something that I notice not one person did, probably because it’s the most logical and the anti’s hate when I mention it as they cannot refute it.
IF smoking and SHS are as dangerous and deadly as Alaskanspawn and the rest of the anti-brigade claim; then someone needs to ask how us baby boomers came into being.
Alaskanspawn, you say you grew up in a smoking household, how is it you survived all that exposure? Your parents letting you children who thought you would like to smoke like your parents, did the right thing. The best way to get a kid to actually not do something you don’t want them to do is to help them do it. It just takes once…………..as you experienced. In most cases anyway. But seriously, I’m 55 years old and have been smoking now for 40 years. I grew up in a time where everyone’s exposure to smoking/SHS was 24/7/365 (unless no one in your home smoked). IF it is as deadly as you claim, then how did us baby boomers even come to be born (given how smokers are supposed to be impotent, infertile and responsible for every miscarriage on earth)? How is it that children back in the 50’s and 60’s were healthier than children being born in the last 20 years (when exposure to SHS has been limited to homes basically)? How do you explain baby boomers still being alive, healthy and causing the government panic attacks as the first wave of us is about to retire?
THEN you need to explain how it is that the children of us smokers managed to be born, were healthy children, do not suffer from allergies and respiratory problems and manage to get into adulthood?
I’ve asked quite a few people this question, including a Tobacco Control advocate who is also a doctor, and even he can’t answer these questions for me.
So, in my world, living, breathing, healthy beings surviving such deadly exposure can only mean one of two things: Either anti claims are exaggerated lies; OR smokers are superior beings. I can’t find another explanation. Can you?
And in case my post is misunderstood, I’m really not trying to be nasty or insulting. Just asking a question since the obvious seems to defy what is being stated these days.
on February 8, 2008 on 2:08 pm
great post, freedom lover…I’m 65 & have smoked for 47 years and never felt better…as I see it, what we oughta be concerned with is the dumbing down of America….this is the big fish to fry…the problem is that there is no money to follow or to be made by tackling this…pharmaceutical companies aren’t pushing smart pills…we better start worrying about what’s going in our kids heads instead of freaking out over epidemological crap
on February 8, 2008 on 6:11 pm
Well since the “doctor” failed to answer you, I will. First of all, let me reiterate…again…that though I am decidedly anti-smoking I am not part of the brigade you speak of. I am tolerant of smoking just not around me, that’s a huge difference. I’m not even for the ridiculous taxation of smokes.
Anyway, no one is saying that smoking is an absolute death sentence though the anti-anti’s seem to like to characterize our arguments that way.
My parents, knowing the danger of smoking, quit shortly after that “let us kids smoke” incident. My grandma never quit and it killed her. My wife’s grandpa didn’t quit and knew it would kill him…it did. He was 93, no one would argue that he had a full life. In the end lung cancer killed him. What I’m saying is that the longer you are exposed the better chance you have ocontracting one of the many diseases associated with ETS. Everyone reacts differently, every dosage needed to contract a disease is different. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it’s like playing russian roulette only there are many more chambers for the 1 bullet. Your odds are pretty good but it only takes that one time.
You and most of the baby boomers beat the odds. Do you really want your children and their children playing that game? Oh ya, it’s their choice, everyone should have a choice and a chance to kill themselves if they want to. Sounds kind of silly to me. I’m telling my son that smoking is bad, dangerous, against every rule I make, the worst thing he can do, etc…
Take your game of russian roulette outside. There’s really nothing to win but it’s possible you could lose everything.
on February 9, 2008 on 7:14 am
Alaskanspawn, We beat the odds? Tens of millions of us are just lucky SoB’s? You also can’t answer that question. So let’s try another.
Can you explain why children today, with little to no exposure to SHS are so ill and seem to have such weak immune systems? More young children today suffer asthma, breathing problems, allergies; catch every cold,flu and virus floating around; than I ever did, or my son, or the millions of us were kids back in the 50’s and 60’s. It couldn’t be all the air pollution and all the ‘germ killing’ products we use today, could it? Or perhaps the pesticide residue in our foods or even the genetically modified ingredients in our foods? Could it? No, we’ll just blame it on the SHS that these kids are hardly ever, if at all, exposed to.
While smoking probably contributed to your grandparents deaths, it was not the cause of their deaths, just one of the confounding factors. Then there’s the question, do you have proof, or some guarantee, that they would have lived even longer had they not smoked?
My father’s mother, a heavy smoker since her teens, died at 96, peacefully in her sleep. No cancer or lung/heart disease. Though she did have alzheimer’s. My mother’s mother, a non-smoker, died at 92, also peacefully in her sleep, though she suffered a stroke a few years before. The only difference between these two women beside age was my father’s mother was skinny as a rail all her life (too thin in my opinion) and she liked a little drink regularly; and my mother’s mother was overweight.
I’m not saying smoking is absolutely harmless, I am saying it is nowhere near as dangerous as you want it to be. There are too many of us still walking around and breathing just fine.
Genetics are the major contributing factor to our lives and health. Everything else just adds to it.
Now, if your concern is damage to heart and lungs, I sure do hope you are not driving a motor vehicle. Because if you are, you are contributing more poison to the ambient air that no one can escape, every time you drive your car, than us smokers could accomplish in a year. And add in all the other motor vehicles, and none of us stands a chance. You also play russian roullette every time you get in a car, for you cannot guarantee that you will arrive at your destination or back home. You can only hope you do.
Life is full of risks, living is a risk; and if ’saving lives’ is the main concern, well, the only obvious solution would be to ban births. The minute we are born, we are destined to die. And to the best of my knowledge no one on earth has the authority or ability to say when anyone will die, how they will die, where they will die. Last I heard that was the universe’s domain, not ours.
I have no problem with separate smoking venues. But apparently, tolerant non-smokers like yourself, can’t handle that either. The fact that you don’t want anyone smoking around or near you makes you intolerant. You may find the bans and taxes to be ridiculous, but you are not a tolerant non-smoker.
My mother is a tolerant non-smoker, for she would never tell someone they couldn’t smoke near her. Unless she was in a hermetically sealed room with no or poor ventilation with a smoker.
I would say that you are smart enough to be against the taxes and total bans because you are able to see the bigger picture and where things could go, knowing they won’t stop with smoking but will eventually reach you.
Do you honestly believe that every single bar, restaurant and club MUST be smoke free? Do you really believe that we should ONLY be allowed to smoke outside, a hundred yards away from any door or window? I’d add in our cars and homes, but those are now also under serious attack.
on February 9, 2008 on 12:39 pm
I’ve also posted several blogs on these issues that you might find interesting…check “the cultural contrarian”
another great posting freedom lover!
on February 9, 2008 on 6:46 pm
Yes, excellent post but you take it just a bit too far. You also overstep the argument, this is about smoking, not car exhaust or any of the thousands of other harmful chemicals in the air.
Everyone that is alive today has “beaten the odds”. This is a good thing and proof that the human body is quite resilient and adaptive.
If you would like to argue other chemicals and it makes sense to do so then bring it on. Car fumes, for example, are harmful but would it makes sense to ban cars? No. Would it makes sense to mitigate the fumes? Yes, that’s why we have emissions and hybrids and electric cars. Should we mitigate our exposure to all harmful fumes/chemicals…yes, when it makes sense to do so.
My tolerance, to correct your misunderstanding, is directed at smokers not the smoke. Don’t make any mistake about it, I pull no punches when it comes to not smoking around me.
All public places, as I have defined many times in the past, should be smoke free. Do not exagerate, misinterpret (for your benefit), or extend my arguments if you would like to continue this discussion. You have good points, it’s just that you were putting words in my mouth.
on February 9, 2008 on 11:30 pm
Hey, Kiddies,
I love all the opinions, values, rights, points and counter points.
On thing I have not seen though is how are we supposed to change the minds of the “moral majority”…the fact is we dont have enough strength anymore, not even in KY, OK, or MS where they report the highest number of smokers.
In WA there is like 17% of the population that smokes, and now we are one of the states proposed to start ticketing parents who smoke with children in the car under age 18.
Ultimately the question is, “How does the abuse minority have equal representation, when anti’s believe that taxation and regulation fair because it is the smokers choice to smoke and pay for making that choice.” You know its like education…everybody wants it improved and nobody wants to pay.
on February 10, 2008 on 1:32 pm
Looking for additional interpretation or opinion on whether ticketing and fining under the current proposal in Washington State could be interpreted as a violation of its own Constitution.
“Article I, Section 14: Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted.” (Any fine assessed for an activity in a privately owned vehicle would be excessive. Unless you extend the same principle to every citizen that performs a potential harmful act, or creating an unnecessary risk factor to ones own child, like feeding your child pizza and soda under the subjective guidelines of inferred casual relationships.) Sounds like a crazy interpretation doesn’t it?
Article I, Section 32 Fundamental Principles: “A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.” (who defines “fundamental principle”)
I also call into question interpretation of Article II, Section 28 Special Legislation “The legislature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases: 5). for assessment or collection of taxes, or for extending the time for collection thereof,” in layman wouldn’t that be violated by continued tobacco taxation?
Thanks for any input.
on February 10, 2008 on 6:40 pm
First off, let me welcome the newcomers here! I’m so happy to ave attracted such intelligent and civil people here. The conversations here just keep getting better and better!
Ok, working backwards a bit… WAstateSmoker, when you think about it logically, yes, I would say that this would constitute excessive taxation. But we’re not dealing with a logical situation here. I think if people brought this to court and actually invested time and money, they would win. However, it’s not a popular battle to fight and people shy away from it. part of why I am fighting the Ban the Ban campaign and funding it with my own money while trying to get sponsorship is because I don’t care if I look like an asshole by fighting against the so-called “good guys.” I am not a smoker (although I am enjoying a very fine Joyo de Nicaragua Antano 1970) but I don’t believe that the war against smokers and tobacco companies is a just one. They have had their first amendment rights trampled on, they are taxed beyond reason, they are demonized by special interests… And they just keep bending over and taking it because – for the most part – smokers have been pretty decent and respectful.
We can’t forget that much of this war is based purely on image. lawmakers are willing to violate constitutions and basic rights afforded to everybody else in this country because it makes them look like the “good guys.” I, for one, have nothing to lose so I don’t care how demonized I am because I have no ulterior motives here. I am willing to fight against popular opinion for what is right – as opposed to what is perceived to be right.
To fight the “moral majority” is to fight an uphill battle… But it can be done. The pro-choice people have succeeded (so far) in fighting the “moral majority” on the abortion issue, and really I see this issue as very similar. You have people who think they’re right on both side of the argument. The key to success is to find arguments that are bulletproof and then forcing people to see them. The anti’s rely on forcing their cherry-picked facts and studies on people while blaming anything that goes against their fighting points as “funded by big tobacco” or something similarly as asinine.
I have been working on putting together a resource page that challenges some of the arguments that anti’s use, and you’re free to use any of the info if you ever want to try to take on your lawmakers…
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/resources-for-lawmakers/
on February 10, 2008 on 6:58 pm
Spawn, Gimper, swfreedomlover…
My take on the whole thing is that most anything we do in life is a gamble. I call it playing the odds.
When you get behind the wheel of a car you’re odds of getting hurt or killed increase exponentially. Add some snow and ice to that mix and the odds really start to stack against you. I ski, which could result in injury or death.
There are things you can do to help bring the odds back into your favor though. I firmly believe that smoking and ETS exposure are the same. Yes, smoking is bad for you, but if you look at the total number of smokers and people exposed to secondhand smoke vs. the number of deaths the percentage is ridiculously low. People with existing illnesses, genetic dispositions towards certain lung and heart ailments etc probably don’t want to smoke or expose themselves to secondhand smoke more than they have to. But people who are healthy and live healthy lifestyles are sharply decreasing their risk. Just like taking proper precautions when driving or taking skiing lessons, smoking doesn’t necessarily mean you will die or even get sick.
As I have said before, I was in the Navy with guys who smoked more than a pack a day and they never had a lick of health problems? Why? I attribute it to two things: first, they are healthy to begin with because people who have diseases or ailments are weeded out. Second, they lived healthy lifestyles. They exercised, usually ate relatively well and watched their health.
One flaw in many arguments and studies is that they don’t take lifestyle into account. many people who smoke or are exposed to regular secondhand smoke are not healthy. They sit at bars, they drink (sometimes heavily) they don’t lead healthy overall lifestyles. The odds against them skyrocket thanks to a number of factors.
Granted, yes, some people throw the dice once and lose, but that’s what happens when you gamble.
on February 10, 2008 on 10:35 pm
Kind of tired here so I’ll keep this short. I agree with you Ryan, life is a gamble. In fact, that’s probably the only certainty there is. My point is why make it more of a gamble than necessary. We do so many things in a normal day that increase our risk of injury or illness, why add to that? More precisely, why add to someone else’s risk inadvertantly…if one does not need to.
You know, I’m still sick. This damn cold is the worst one I’ve had in years. I managed to go out to a restaurant (Benihana’s) almost a week ago for my birthday and am very thankful that there was no smoke wafting on the breeze. It would, most assuredly, have added to my illness. To be honest, I would not have even gone out if it weren’t for the fact I promised my son we would. Again, thankful I didn’t have to worry about smoke on the breeze…isn’t that a song? Uh, no, it’s smoke on the water hehe.
OK time for bed
.
on February 11, 2008 on 10:13 am
Just thought I would throw some information regarding contributing factors to poor health beyond smoking…
A February, 2007 report shows, “At least two of the agricultural groups studied in this report were noted to have significantly elevated mortality for several respiratory diseases, including tuberculosis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, asthma, COPD, pneumonia, and influenza,” (Department of health and human Services, Center of Disease Control and Prevention, 2007).
“Asthma is a chronic respiratory illness often associated with familial, allergenic, socioeconomic, psychological, and environmental factors. Approximately 15 million Americans have asthma, of those approximately 5 million are children,” (CureResearch.com, as reported by the CDC). 5X smaller in numbers than that of current smokers.
“Respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema form a major health problem in the general population in many western countries with evidence that these diseases are caused by exogenous factors other than tobacco smoke, and that occupational exposures are amongst these causes, is growing” (Vermeulen, Heederik, Kromhout, Smit, 2002).
“It concluded that the only good evidence showed that mold can exacerbate asthma and cause coughing, wheezing and other upper-respiratory symptoms in otherwise healthy people,” (Stein, Washington Post, 2004).
In addition, 70,000 people have familial emphysema.
Now to move on to a new question…how does the anti-smoking bans represent a majority?
“In a public opinion poll performed in 2003, individuals were asked their opinion on smoking in public and given the choices of total restriction, specified locations, or no restriction at all in four separate categories: restaurants, workplaces, hotels and bars. The results yielded results contradictory from current policy. In each of the establishments, the majority of the pollee’s felt that smoking should be allowed or restricted in specific locations suggesting that smokers and non-smokers favor compromise to absolution. Restaurants received the highest percentage of absolution at 45 percent and only 23 percent it should be eliminated from bar,” (Gallup Poll News Service, 2003).
Also, this is WA specific, but I would like a non-smoker to explain this or justify it…
First govt. studies show that the low-income, lower level-educated people make up the majority of smokers, with this being said, The 1999 Washington State Legislature received the state’s initial $320 million share from the Master Settlement Agreement. In 2001 voters approved initiative 773, raising the tobacco tax to a then national high $1.425 a pack. Currently, the state gets just over two dollars per pack ($2.025) of cigarettes from taxes, over $425 million in 2006 from only 17 percent of the population, of which not all are on state aid, but the reason for such high taxation is to reduce state health care costs. “Yet, only half goes to health care ($1.01). The rest of the revenue goes to the “general fund” ($0.23), programs to stop youth violence ($0.105), water quality ($0.08), and education programs ($0.60).” (Washington State Liquor Control Board). Good programs but they are not the sole responsibility of smokers and they do nothing to balance health care costs.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to use all funds for health care?
Furthermore if we know the demographics would it not make more sense to generate revenue to improve education, elevate living condition stands of the poor, drumming up financial support from all of the state to reduce multiple risk factors vs. the current means of extortion and coersion, attempting to force people into submission by taking funds they dont have and trying to make smoking so expensive people have to quit?
Most smokers are respectful of others, some are not, but that can be said of any category or demographic can it not.
Thanks for listening, and by listening of course I mean reading.
on February 11, 2008 on 10:21 am
Oh yeah, Ryan…GO ARMY!! (I am in the Army) I am on my way out now and can not wait to get out of this silly a** state.
on February 11, 2008 on 10:57 am
WAstateSmoker, I agree with you on the taxation bit. We shouldn’t single out a portion of the population just because they have a nasty habit.
You speak of occupational exposures being a cause for respiratory diseases. I agree, there are many jobs out there where you are at more risk of exposure to harmful irritants than others. Mold is a problem in my own house, luckily I’m pretty sure it’s not the really nasty kind of mold otherwise I’d be sick more often than not. I spray it with bleach and then try to paint over it with that mold resistant/mold killing paint. Damn mold is resilient though. So back to the point, I’m assuming you would not be in favor of mitigating the risk of exposure to harmful chemicals/fumes at work? It’s just the risk you take for working there right? It’s your choice so you should just take your medicine and shut up? I’m confused by your arguements.
As far as the studies you mention go, would you be so kind as to link to the original studies? I would like to read them. I don’t think I have enough info to respond currently. I can speculate but that’s all it would be until I familiarize myself with those studies.
A few things I would like to see changed, so you all know where I’m coming from. Taxation of smokes should be looked at and amended to provide healthcare for smokers. Moving smoking outside is enough, going any further does not make sense. Banning smoking in tobacco/cigar shops does not make sense and should be changed. Banning smoking in private clubs does not make sense from a “public” viewpoint.
on February 11, 2008 on 1:43 pm
[It’s just the risk you take for working there right? It’s your choice so you should just take your medicine and shut up?]
For one, if the choice is between unemployed people or people working obviously working wins in about every time, however, not all people have a lot of choice in what or where they work…”a job is a job & someone’s gotta do it.” So of course I believe we should make attempts to make work environments safer for all people.
The point is simply to reiterate risks outside of tobacco exist…Never will all variables be removed to determine 100 percent proof positive the direct impact of cigarette smoking or second hand smoke. So my point is never will all variables be removed to determine 100 percent proof positive the direct impact of cigarette smoking or second hand smoke.
I have never disputed segregation of smokers and non-smokers to error on the side of caution. Though you do have to wonder how craming smokers in designated areas with poor if any ventilation, or putting them directly outside in the elements is better from a healthcare stand point than sharing facilities. And you do have to admire those hardcore smokers resilience and reluctance to give up on the percieved notion of freedom of choice.
With that being said, I am glad to see that you at least to some degree seem to acknowledge that the movement has become way more intrusive than it needs to be.
I just wonder how it has gotten as far as it has. Where will it stop and what happens politically and socially if smoking were to be stubbed out, who will the majority turn on then…heard of McLawsuits?
The links for the articles are as follows:
Respiratory Disease in Agricultural Workers:
Mortality and Morbidity Statistics February 2007
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-106/pdfs/2007-106.pdf
Facts About Asthma
http://www.cureresearch.com/artic/facts_about_asthma_cdc_oc.htm
Respiratory symptoms and occupation: a cross-sectional study of the general population
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=149394
Moldy Buildings Tied to Respiratory Problems
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55697-2004May25.html
on February 12, 2008 on 10:28 am
We have been subjected to the anti smokers for a while here in Hawaii We are totally smoke free everywhere except your own home and 200 ft. from any entrance. BUT !
Just yesterday bar and restaraunt owners succeeded in getting a bill written up that would allow them to let people smoke in their establishments as long as they pay a fee every month. 500.00 to 1500.00 a month.
Which is way less than what they are loosing. I know, is still bullshit , but its a start.
on February 12, 2008 on 2:53 pm
It’s interesting that you choose the phrase “subjected to anti smokers” considering one of my earliest memories of Hawaii was being subjected to smokers and ETS while in Hawaii as a kid. I’m not kidding nor am I just making this up. I think I was about 10 or so when my parents took me to Hawaii and I remember to this day they had no “smoking section” in the restaurant where we had breakfast. I remember feeling a little out of place, like I had stepped back in time or something. Alaska had already standardized restaurants with “smoking sections”.
As far as paying a fee, I think that’s a little absurd and would be surprised if that passed. It seems like they wouldn’t even need the bill since I’m sure they could just pay the fine every month.
on February 12, 2008 on 5:46 pm
As far as risk taking goes, should we really be in the business of legislating away decision making so people don’t have to worry about risks. Is smoking a risk? yes, of course it is, but it is a choice we are allowed to make. Is going somewhere that you may be exposed to smoke a risk? Possibly, but it’s still a choice. Why should anybody take that choice away from everybody just so some people don’t have to make that choice?
I know we’ve been down this road before, but we never really came to any understanding. Nonsmokers have the ability to choose whether or not they go someplace that allows smoking. On average, that gives them greater than 50% of the overall establishments to patronize if they want to avoid smoking. To open that up to 100%, you take away any option for smokers. You reduce their choice to 0%. Is that fair? It sounds selfish to me!
I mean, you could use the same argument against alcohol because you don’t want to expose your family to people who drink alcohol or potential drunk behavior.
on February 12, 2008 on 5:48 pm
WAstateSmoker, are you at Ft. Lewis? I spent five years at NAS Whidbey Island… I couldn’t get out of WA fast enough, so I hear you!
on February 12, 2008 on 6:18 pm
Ft Lewis for now, rumor mill says for economics they are planning a merge of Lewis and McChord AFB…It would then be FT McLewis. No I jest, but that would be funny huh.
Alaskanspawn…I was so looking forward to some feedback on my viewpoints and sources…Also, regarding the blatant misuse of majority of non smokers.
Setting aside bans for now, how do I/we 17% here in WA get the other 83% to stop the unnecessary encroachment. How do you reach people whom refuse to think for themselves or see the ripple effects of allowing the advancement of legislation that will one day affect them?
on February 12, 2008 on 6:42 pm
Well, I will say this much, this is not something we should have ever had to worry about. One of the points this country was founded upon was individual rights over group rights. Just because people belong to a minority population doesn’t mean that their rights are somehow less important or less legitimate than anybody else’s.
Didn’t we fight a civil war over minority rights? Why is it that today it has become acceptable practice to violate a minority group’s rights simply because they aren’t considered to be socially acceptable or are doing something that other people don’t like?
An individual has the right to choose, and they should not lose their rights simply because they choose to stray from the majority population.
on February 12, 2008 on 7:46 pm
“The will of the majority is in all cases to prevail,”
[Thomas] Jefferson declared. But he, added, “that will to be rightful must be reasonable; the minority possess their equal rights,
which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Smokers, in present day America, do not receive this protection that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently spoke of in his inaugural address.
Moreover isnt funny how in todays society you can be fired over looking at an attractive woman for to long? (that is of course only if she finds you repulsive) or complimenting a woman who uncharactoristically dresses up (obvously looking for a compliment) but if you are over heard by another woman you can be fired. (third party sexual harassment) you have to watch what you say or do…are we trying to form a truly paranoid society? The sad fact is that no one wants to take responsibility at all, if you can blame someone DO IT…this is so freaking hypocritical coming from a “moral majority.” The tradgically funny part is that this is being driven by those who brought us Woodstock, free love, drugs and rock and roll…what happened to the hippies? Live and let live, why did only the protesters survive?
What do I know, I am a generation X by product…I say screw it move over baby boomers I wanna be generation NEXT!
SPIEHS for Pres. 2012!!!
on February 12, 2008 on 10:44 pm
Apologies for the delay in my rebuttal, I haven’t had a chance to read anything yet (slacker). Anyway, I’ll get to it…just wanted you to know I’m not ignoring you.
on February 13, 2008 on 6:11 am
Its quite alright Spawn.
Hey just outta couriosity what kind of age demographic are we looking at here? Seems like there are way to many intelligent individuals here that can not possibly be coming from the age group…me 34.
on February 13, 2008 on 9:04 am
Just turned 36 last week.
on February 13, 2008 on 9:14 am
spawn—regarding your comment about restaurants in Hawaii just paying the fines, that’s ridiculous and defeats your whole purpose…if you’re in the islands, you don’t want to walk into a restaurant thinking it’s non smoking only to find people puffing away, do you?….wouldn’t it make more sense to see a sign saying smokiing permitted here at those few that would apply for it…I’ve never understood why you antis have to have 100%, why you can’t allow a few exceptions….because of your failure to compromise you are creating this ground swell of protest exemplified by Ryan’s original posting….my guess is it will not go away and when the pendulum begins to swing the other way you antis will wish you had been more accomodating….that’s one of the lessons of the history of social movements….by thw way WA smoker, I’m 65, recently retired, very active and a smoker of 47 years…in all those years not one person has dropped from the exposure to my second hand smoke (the
former Surgeon General I know will be shocked to hear that)
on February 13, 2008 on 10:44 am
Well I guess you missed my sarcasm gimper. I still think the “pay for the right to smoke” is silly and would much rather see private clubs with the ability to allow smoking.
on February 13, 2008 on 11:04 am
no, spawn….don’t know about the others but private clubs don’t get it for me…how in the world, if I go to Hawaii, am I going to find a restaurant where I can smoke if they are all private clubs? Do I have to make out a membership application? pay an entrance fee? pay dues? all because you just must have every privately owned public restaurant smoke free?
on February 13, 2008 on 1:48 pm
It’s interesting to me that the argument “how in the world, if I go to Hawaii, am I going to find a restaurant where I can smoke if they are all private clubs?” is sooo very similar to the one I made about me trying to find a non-smoking restaurant where my son and I can eat while on a trip.
Membership dues would be necessary but could be $1. The only reason I like the private club thing is I’ve seen it work fairly well in Salt Lake City (as screwy as that place is). In order to sell hard alcohol in a bar you need to privatize and have memberships, very strange but didn’t seem to bother them too much.
on February 13, 2008 on 8:32 pm
Well, I would say a couple things about this: First off, the private club/private establishment thing work so long as the ban doesn’t extend to encompass private clubs (like the one in MN). This is where the “public health” argument comes in, because Minnesota justified their ban on private clubs by citing the public health issue. If this a indeed a public health issue, then smoking should just be banned period. If this is simply a nuisance or convenience issue, then the ban advocates simply need to just out and admit that.
second, I would still like to know why smokers should have their rights stripped completely away so that others don’t have to pick and choose where they go? Why is it OK to force smokers out so nonsmokers can go wherever they want? It makes no sense.
on February 14, 2008 on 8:47 am
Alaskaspawn;
“As far as paying a fee, I think that’s a little absurd and would be surprised if that passed. It seems like they wouldn’t even need the bill since I’m sure they could just pay the fine every month.”
Like I said Spawn, its start. You might be be surprised at what passes here. It involves more than just paying a fine every month if you circumvent the law.
At least someone is looking in another direction besides totalitarian methods.
on February 14, 2008 on 6:18 pm
The ban is wrong from a capitalist point of view, and socially as well. Any business owner should be able to determine who he/she wants to service. In stead of all or nothing, business owners could hang simple signs…Welcome All, Smokers, Clean Air, or whatever…look an example is this…a dinner or cafe owner has the right to have a bum removed, or refuse service right…public places often say no shoes no shirt no service, so if they can post that why not publicly display smoker friendly or clean air?
Oh yeah cause the hard core anti’s dont want to be inconvienced because non smokers make up the majority.
So only the minority should sacrifice.
Check it out, Spawn, I’ve given you props on at least understanding the point of taxation, and further legislation regarding the movement…but I need you to clarify something for me…I am a fisherman, love camping and such. I also smoke. so if I go camping or fishing in a state park, should I not be allowed to smoke because it is a public place? I ask this because I was reading a thing from AZ were they wanted to ban smoking at some beach (I am assuming off a lake) and a big portion of the ban support was not from safety or health standpoints but from the a-hole smokers who through butts all over, which I have to say as a smoker just irks the crap out of me because it is one of the reasons people think it is a filthy habit…whats your take?
on February 15, 2008 on 8:39 am
WAstateSmoker, did you see this:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/283035.html
Here’s a question for people: should smoking be banned in public outdoor areas such as parks? From the looks of this article, cities in Washington State are doing it.
Can anybody claim in good conscious that a smoker in a park is a health threat to other people in the park? The disbursement (i.e. PPM) of smoke chemicals would be so small that it would probably be nearly immeasurable… Yet here we are and they’re holding up “the children” as a rationale for banning smoking outdoors
on February 15, 2008 on 9:36 am
Sorry I’ve been kind of distant in the last couple days…not enough sleep lately I think.
You bring up a good point about the littering WAstatesmoker. Actually one I hadn’t thought too much about. Smokers do tend to congregate around each other and just toss the cigarette butts where ever they want. At a beach, that would really be nasty. I can’t say I’ve really ever run into that but I would guess that this particular beach you speak of has an issue with it. This particular issue is a bit different from a financial impact. I don’t see the problem with trying to control litter on a beach. If no one goes to the beach after that…oh well…it was free to go there anyway. I think the same could be said for alcohol too if those that drink on that beach throw their bottles and cans on the ground too. The other alternative would be to closely monitor littering for a period of time and fine those that litter.
You know, I’m not really feeling this blog right now. It’s probably just one of my phases and I’m sure I’ll get back into it soon. Please excuse my lack of intelligent conversation lately. hehe.
on February 16, 2008 on 8:31 am
Ryan,
Thanks for turning me on to that tribune article!
Of course I had to register to remark and remark I did.
Man do people really not see this madness? It hurts me! Really, has our great country reduced itself to this low of a level that we are again destine to create like a 3rd Great Awakening or Prohibition movements which the 1st and 2nd Awakenings were not so hot, and Prohibition was obviously not successful, so what was it, just the wrong cause and this time everything will be all hunky dory cause its the mortal sin of smokers?
I DONT GET IT!!
on February 16, 2008 on 8:37 am
By the way here is the first comment that the article rcvd.
Smoke at home–Submitted by rocketman–on February 14, 2008–3:17am.
“You filthy butt puffers,you stink and your killing yourself, so do it in your own inviroment”
this was my response…
Submitted by freedomlover on February 15, 2008 – 10:00am.
For one rocketman, you are a prime example of what is wrong with today’s society…
“You filthy butt puffers,you stink and your killing yourself, so do it in your own inviroment.”
Your entitled to your opinion because this is America, but you have offered nothing by your post and you should value education over opinion…Environment, YOU ARE (you’re not your) and it is just as much a smoker’s outdoor environment as it a non-smoker’s…secondly only 17% of Washington residents smoke, so by definition they are a minority group (smokers vs. nonsmokers) entitled to same equality , furthermore, if smokers are killing themselves why is the life expectancy like 78 years of age? How do some people smoke 3 packs a day and live beyond 78? Why is it not completely banned or deemed an illegal activity? Why does do politicians jump on the “good for you” band wagon?
The fact is smoking is a risk factor, just like drinking, driving, not eating healthy meals, it is not a certainty for ill health. BUT if in fact it were SO bad, why then is not all of the states tobacco taxation going to healthcare? Currently, the state gets just over two dollars per pack of cigarettes from taxes, over $425 million in 2006 from only 17 percent of the population, (of which not all are on state aid). “Yet, only half goes to health care ($1.01). The rest of the revenue goes to the “general fund” ($0.23), programs to stop youth violence ($0.105), water quality ($0.08), and education programs ($0.60)” (Washington State Liquor Control Board).
It’s not about healthcare!!
“The will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
- Thomas Jefferson
As far as role models go, take a look around as Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, and countless others plug up the airways. If you’re a sports fan…how about those performance enhancers!
You have every right to make decisions regarding how you live your life…but if you think just a little you will see that you haven’t always been right and really you don’t have the right to use extortion, and coercion tactics to force people to think like you do or live the way you think they should.
Smokers gave up the right to smoke in public buildings…taking it to the outdoors goes WAY TOO FAR!
and here was the following comment…
wow freedomlover–Submitted by JODILUDWIG–on February 15, 2008 – 3:22pm.
“I couldn’t have said that better – really I couldn’t. Well said and I agree… illiteracy is not a good thing rocket man….per Webster….”
How about that, huh?
on February 17, 2008 on 10:12 am
Guys, stick to the subject. I hate misspellings and poor grammar as much as the next person but trying to sidebar the conversation is a lame tactic. I think everyone should use MSWord to create their posts, that should help minimize that argument so we can stick to what’s important.
You quote Thomas Jefferson, not the first time I’ve seen that but I have to say that taking the smoking outside IS reasonable. You mention prohibition and that it never worked. Correct. This is not what should happen nor is it something we should allow to happen. Moving the smoking outside is NOT prohibition. I’m sorry some of you have to stand out in the cold to have that smoke but suck it up (no pun intended). Has anyone ever thought that the constant bickering from smokers and non-smokers are escalating the legislation?
Are there some crazies out there that cry foul every time they smell a whiff of smoke…yes. Are there some crazies that instigate that attitude…yes. This is not like drinking, eating bad food, or bad driving. There are certain risks we take that everyone is willing to take. All of those risks come with more risks and their own set of laws and regulations. Driving has emissions regulations and licensing fees etc… Eating bad food gets you fat and unhealthy (key word is YOU). Drinking, well we’ve gone down that road before. Check Ryan’s “should we ban alcohol” post. There are certain risks that we are not willing to take? Yep and it would seem that the recent legislation in 20+ states would indicate that smoking is something we should look at.
Smoking legislation should be changed or rather amended. I’ve mentioned how I think it should be changed already. The taxation of smokes should be revisited. Though I think it ironic when smokers say “it’s not a health issue” but agree the taxation should go to health care. If you didn’t think that why argue the point? What should the taxes go to if not healthcare? Perhaps some of you think that the privatization argument I’ve brought up is just so you smokers can have a place to smoke. Wrong. I just think that if you truly are a private club then you should be able to make the rules. There’s a downside to this in that if you truly privatize then there maybe some laws or protection you are not entitled to.
Well this is the longest post in a few weeks for me so I’ll shut up now and save some of it for later.
on February 17, 2008 on 11:07 am
Spawn, sorry I didn’t make it clear…my last post was from the article in the Tribune:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/283035.html
The issue is banning smoking OUTSIDE in some areas…
We have agreed several times on different points regarding legislation and taxation…again I say, if the movement is using healthcare as the issue then then the taxation should only go to funding healthcare, the only other exceptable use, In my mind, it to help fund the education and cessation programs regarding tobacco use.
on February 17, 2008 on 3:34 pm
So, I was just reading the Mondovi Herald (Wisconsin town, for those that are not from Wisconsin) for the 14th of February. There is an article in there by one Ryan Toppin in the Soapbox sentiments. It’s about the smoking ban and it’s scary how similar the arguments are to arclightzero Ryan. I have to wonder if Ryan is using a pen name
. As I was reading it I was finding myself thinking “haven’t we gone over this already?”. Funny.
One of the arguments, and forgive me for rehashing, was that “Lots of people put life and limb and health on the line for a pay check. A drastically abridged list of these people would include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nuclear technicians, demolition crews, farmers and everyone who rides a bus or drives a car to work.”.
I wonder how those officers would feel without bulletproof vests, better yet, without a gun? I wonder how the fire fighters would feel without all the protective gear they are issued? I’m sure you get the point. Every one of these jobs are dangerous but they take measures to mitigate that danger. Moving smoking outside is just mitigating the danger.
I know that was an old argument but I just thought I’d bring it up since it was in the paper. So Ryan, are you using a pen name to spread the word? hehe.
on February 17, 2008 on 3:44 pm
As far as banning smoking in outdoor areas. At a high level, to me, that’s absurd. At an individual case level it might make sense. Might. Before you think I’m making your argument for you let me explain.
The beach with all the cigarette butts in the sand is a good example. I would hate to go to a beach and have to walk through that kind of trash. If it’s a real problem there are only a few things you can do. Ban it, create designated smoking areas, fine the shit out of those caught littering or nothing. All personal feelings aside, what would you do?
What if there was a park that had a problem with fires? I know in Alaska they even ban campfires during the dry times. It just makes sense.
Even with all the reasons, I still personally don’t condone banning smoking outside.
on February 18, 2008 on 11:30 am
Anyone see this?
http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/local/15732022.html
A loophole…soon to be closed I’m sure.
on February 18, 2008 on 11:46 am
You said it, “create designated smoking areas, fine the shit out of those caught littering.” but that is my “political philosophy” for everything…allow people to do what they will with their life, regulate it to a reasonable extent, those violating regulation, should be prosecuted harshly…no half a**.
And you hit it with the fear of fires, it makes sense!! Some jackhole tossin’ a butt out the window, or on the ground is wrong on several levels, not because he/she smokes.
The article made me chuckle. So spawn, should states make the decision or should cities/counties? I hail from Nebraska and I know that they have dry counties, and cities have their own rules regarding alcohol sales on Sundays. I believe TX does too.
on February 18, 2008 on 5:29 pm
Well, interestingly the other Ryan in Wisconsin isn’t me. I’ll have to check it out though.
On two points here, I think there are some interesting aspects…
First off, the point about smoking taxes going to health costs. As far as I am concerned, there shouldn’t be any sort of special allocation of any tax money to any special program unless there is a direct correlation (i.e. gas tax going to roads etc). I think WAstateSmoker’s point is a legitimate one in the sense that the biggest arguments for smoking bans are always the health arguments. However, if health were the number one priority, why wouldn’t the vast majority, if not all of the tax money go towards health care? It’s a lot like somebody creating a gas tax after complaining about the condition of roads and then siphoning portions off to go towards art appreciation or food stamps. It just lacks logic.
Personally I don’t fall into the camp of people who think that tobacco taxes should go to health care… But than again, I don’t believe in government funded health care anyway. There should be no reason to tax tobacco beyond the sales tax that any other similar product is and the funds should go into the same pool.
As for smoking outdoors, I agree that liter sucks and running into a pile of nasty butts is less than desirable, but that’s not a smoking issue. There is no legitimate toxicity issue at work here. As I said before, there is a much greater threat from the traffic on the roads around the park than there would be from secondhand smoke outdoors… And since there is next to no danger from cars passing by, that really says something about ETS… With that said, make it a littering issue and limit smoking alongside campfires during dry periods – but there is no justifiable reason to make it a smoking issue.
on February 19, 2008 on 12:17 am
Well after thinking about the health care issue, I kind of agree with you Ryan. Why tax something that is inherantly bad for you only to put that tax towards taking care of you. It looks good on paper but is just doesn’t make sense. Makes me wonder where the alcohol taxes go…AA programs?
I think the point for banning smoking outdoors was only to make a point. It really wasn’t a tobacco/health issue but a side argument that does actually have merit. How does a county or city fix the litter problem (cigarette butts)? I know there are other types of trash but how often do you see cigarette butts lying on the sidewalk, at intersections, on the beach, at the park, etc…? I have seen bottles and fast food trash in the same places but I would argue that cigarettes are the dominant trash. Something to think about but not really related to the smoking ban issue at hand.
Time for bed…
on February 19, 2008 on 4:03 pm
Hurray for the creative folks in northern Minnesota who found a loophole. What an utterly ass-inine and stupid law anyway. If you don’t like the “rules of the restaurant/bar’, don’t go there. Duh! Oh, and by the way, the truth is out. A British health official has admitted what we really all know—second hand smoke is a smoke screen–a rube—to get laws passed to get people to quit smoking. He admits the fraud!!!!
It may take a while and create a lot of angst but the truth will prevail!! The second hand smoke hoax will go down in history alongside Witchcraft in Salem and the Jews being resposible for all of Germany’s problems in the last century.
on February 19, 2008 on 7:46 pm
Well, I am going to admit to my own absurdity. I despise litterers. I have almost been in traffic fights yelling at someone who was throwing trash right out their windows. Now for my confession. The taxes on cigarettes in Anchorage are nearly $4 per pack (yes, we are the highest in the nation). Starting this year, I have made it a point to throw my butts out whenever I can. I am paying the bill for the cleaning of the streets and I am going to get my monies worth.
Now, before you go on a tirade that my thoughts are childish and wrong I have to say…..duh. I know they are and I know they are hurting the cause. I am still going to keep doing it.
on February 20, 2008 on 10:12 am
Sigh…and I call this guy my best friend. You’re such a dork. Seriously though, quit perpetuating the problem. Don’t be THAT guy!
on February 20, 2008 on 10:13 am
Oh, gimper please link to that british guy you speak of. I’d like to read that.
on February 20, 2008 on 2:08 pm
try:
http://www.pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com/
be sure and read the whole thing
on February 20, 2008 on 3:54 pm
For spawn and all others….also read the following:
http://news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23182078-5001021,00.html
So I guess we have to ban peanut products. I worked with a guy who was allergic to any kind of fish. Even it’s smell bothered him quite a bit so I guess we need to include all fish as something that MUST be banned.
I hope you see where this is headed. All you folks that think it’s ok to ban smoking need to know that when it’s your turn in the barrel, you’d better not be squabbling. Prime candidates include Alcohol and high fat foods. And by the way, the movement is already on for these. “You’d better hang on. You’re in for a bumpy ride.”
on February 21, 2008 on 11:29 am
banning peanuts….I wonder if thats a conservative conspiracy to get back at Jimmy Carter…hmmmm
on February 21, 2008 on 12:00 pm
Well simple solution…fire the guy with the allergy…duh. Hehe, seriously people this is not a ban, even the article said there was no enforcement around it and it was meant to inject a little humor into the situation.
On the other hand, since it’s not possible to have an allergic reaction from the smell I would leave it up to each employee to make the call to be an asshole or not.
Banning fish was done in our department because I, being Alaskan, brought some salmon in for lunch and microwaved it. It was pretty stinky…really good but stinky. It wasn’t a real ban but out of kindness to my fellow co-workers who apparently hate fish I left it at home from then on. No big deal. I’ll tell you tho, I didn’t really expect the smell to travel as far as it did…I guess smokers must have the same idea that their smoke doesn’t travel far.
on February 21, 2008 on 7:13 pm
Yeah, but at least smoke smells good
D
on February 21, 2008 on 7:18 pm
Ack! I’m falling behind!
Ok, Camel, you’re a disturbed individual. Which is probably why I like you so much. Spawn, you’re disturbed too, don’t worry… Some day I’d like to enjoy a cigar with both of you and have some real conversation.
Although the idea of peanuts being a right-wing conspiracy against Carter is hilarious.
Seriously though, Gimper’s peanut ban proposal isn’t terribly off base. The slippery slope of legislating things that annoy, irritate or inconvenience people is very real.
If you don’t believe me, take this example:
Did you ever hear about the proposed microwavable popcorn ban in Seattle? Check it out:
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_061307WABmicrowavepopcornbanTP.43bf29d9.html
I have also been involved in fighting the trans fat ban here in Wisconsin – which is another attempt to legislate a nuisance or inconvenience to people who can’t monitor their own eating habits and lead healthy lifestyles.
One of the reasons I am fighting so hard against the smoking bans is because people need to take responsibility for their own lives and stop expecting the government to intervene every time they want something their way or want to be sheltered or protected from something. I don’t care much for smoke, but I tolerate it and make the choice to go places where I get exposed to smoke. Why? Because sometimes I don’t feel like going to one of the nonsmoking places. maybe they have better beer. Maybe the bartender or waitress is better eye candy. Maybe they make a killer burger…
However, at no point would I ever think it’s OK to tell the government to intervene so I could enjoy that tasty burger and eye candy without having to smell smoke. Why? Because it’s not my place. I can make a statement by not patronizing the place, but since the places are almost always packed with smoking patrons, I don’t think they would change their ways because I stopped going there.
I can also tell you this much… None of the nonsmoking places around here do nearly the volume of business as the places that allow smoking. In an area like mine, accommodating some whining babies would be economically devastating.
on February 21, 2008 on 7:23 pm
Read the viewer comments on this story:
http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_topstories_070618_popcornban.15853656.html
on February 21, 2008 on 8:03 pm
Thought you guys would be interested in reading my recent blog posting. It pretty well sums up my position. Unfortunately, the word compromise does not seem to be in the anti’s vocabulary.
http://theculturalcontrarian.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/the-conundrum/
on February 21, 2008 on 8:16 pm
Hey! I didn’t know you had a blog. I’ll have to check it out. I know you’ve mentioned the cultural contrarian before, but you didn’t give out a link… Nice!
on February 22, 2008 on 12:47 pm
Ok real quick. The popcorn ban may sound silly at face value but it isn’t the “city” of Seattle but the “City of Seattle” that’s banning it. Big difference. I would actually think you would support that since it is a company deciding what to do with their space.
Can you imagine the cost involved with evacuating all the jail cells and the entire building everytime some idiot forgets that popcorn takes only a couple minutes instead of 20mins? What the story doesn’t say is if the City has tried other measures that did not work. You cannot just let it continue if it’s causing issues.
So read the article again…it’s not the entire city of Seattle banning microwave popcorn but the “City of Seattle” saying what you can and can’t do on their property. It’s no different from a bar or restaurant saying you can’t smoke on the premises.
on February 23, 2008 on 11:22 am
Good day, Fella’s.
If I may interject, once again gimper hits the real issue hard, lack of compromise…spawn I appreciate your concern with the cost of evacuations, however…if the incidents are so frequent that cost becomes a factor then it should be just as clear that numerous people desire and enjoy having popcorn as a snack. You could also safely assume that successful popping is more common than the evacuations. (Much like the smoking and healthcare, some do, some don’t).
With this in mind the point then becomes (just as it is with smoking) finding compromise.
A fiscal issue should be addressed by a fiscally reasonable solution. For example, invest in a popping machine for the break room. Eliminate the need to pop corn in the microwave (ultimately eliminating this as a cause of evacuation) while allowing people to continue making their choice to snack on popcorn.
Coincidentally, satisfying both sides of the issue through compromise, stopping the over popping and allowing people to snack on popcorn. Compromise vs. Banning, ban something in one place others are sure to follow further perpetuating the banning craze, which in my mind, is the real epidemic.
All things in life are to be enjoyed in moderation. Have I mentioned I can not wait to get out of this state? 4 months to go!!
on February 23, 2008 on 10:39 pm
So we have free popcorn at work, and that system works fine. I totally agree with that. The fact of the matter is that the article did not state whether or not the City tried other avenues before deciding to restrict microwave popcorn. SO, without knowing the full extent of the problem…could be vast…we should assume all other avenues were exhausted.
If I own a company and I say no microwave popcorn, end of discussion. What’s the difference here? It’s basically a company (publically funded) that has the same issues as any other company.
Moderation is key to everything, though some would disagree.
on February 24, 2008 on 5:57 am
so, spawn, if I own a company, in this case a restaurant or bar, and I say smoking is OK, end of discussion ????? What’s the difference here? It’s basically a company that has the same issues as any other company. ???? Moderation is the key to everything…………………….
on February 24, 2008 on 10:44 am
That’s exactly my point, why are you guys worried about what this company is banning? You seem to be arguing both sides.
In other words, you can’t tell me the government does not have the right to ban smoking and then also tell me the owner of a company cannot ban microwave popcorn. Perhaps I wasn’t clear on my point.
on February 24, 2008 on 1:40 pm
Spawn, the point I was trying to make was simply one about doing things in excess – which follows well in the footsteps of smoking bans. The modern day answer to anything that annoys people or inconveniences anybody is to go overboard.
My point, however, was twofold. Let me break this down a bit:
First off, there was the point that has already been pointed out. You say that the city “entity” is basically a company and has the right to function as`such when it comes to rules etc. To that end, I agree with you. However, would you feel likewise if the state came in and declared a state-wide popcorn ban because of a few problem children? After all, it would be “fair” to do so because it might upset some people if some places allowed popcorn and others didn’t.
My second point is what I started with. Going to extremes. If you consider how many people microwave popcorn every day in every city-operated building, would a few scattered “incidents” justify an outright ban? Punish the whole because of the mistakes of the very few? I mean, when you think about it, every place I have ever worked there has always been a massive microwavable popcorn subculture. I can remember days where I wondered if the microwave ever got a break. That’s a whole lot of popcorn makers.
Furthermore, if they are having what I would presume to be fire alarm-related evacuations, they should address their fire detection systems. I worked as a maintenance person at a hotel for a while and grew intimately familiar with commercial fire detection systems. A proper commercial fire detection system should be able to differentiate between a genuine fire and burnt food – that’s why restaurants, hotels etc don’t have fire alarms going off due to their cooking. If the city buildings are using improper, oversensitive or improperly maintained equipment, then it should be addressed. Seriously, I have never once seen popcorn set off the fire alarm at any of my workplaces, and I have seen people burn it so bad that you could hardly see the microwave any longer because the smoke was so thick. Again, and you touched on it already, have they pursued all other avenues? Or are they simply punishing the whole because of their own ineptitude?
on February 25, 2008 on 10:12 am
Well said Ryan. Having lived here in Washington for 6 years now, I doubt that any other means have been explored. Since this “company” is the city…I think there is just cause to worry about the way they deal with small issues as government. Government is reflective/representative (small to large, large to small) and it is the means of handling and/or defining “problems” that worries me. You have to admit spawn, the epidemic of banning (avoidance and intolerance as a solution) got its stronghold from anti-smoking movement, and has now reached into areas of peoples lives that 10 years ago, would have been viewed as irrational paranoia. (Trans-fat, McLawsuits, even by law all TV going to digital, what?) The list is long. And please forgive me if I come off as delusional, but the way things are going the future frightens me. The choice is perpetuate or terminate this type governing. I wish I were as noble as Ryan, but I am a smoker and there for my opinion does not weigh as much…why?
on March 13, 2008 on 5:58 am
alaskanspawn
You said “that Bottom line, if just one restaurant claims the smoking ban and is lying then the whole list is suspect.” It sounds like you live in the Twin Cities. For years prior to the ban the Twin Cities averaged 15 bar closures per year. In the 2 years after the ban there were over 100, That is a 300% increase in closures. http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
http://www.tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/MN_Smoking_Ban.pdf
on March 21, 2008 on 8:55 am
ryan………..have you been watching what’s happening in Minnesota & Illinois where non-smokers,like you, are waging a war against the ban?
on March 21, 2008 on 9:17 am
yeah, and I’m very happy to see it! I’m hoping that more people start getting pissed off and challenging this crap. It’s getting out of control and it’s going to take more than just the smokers to put an end to it.
on March 21, 2008 on 1:52 pm
AMEN!
on March 21, 2008 on 1:55 pm
Gimper, do you watch the Ban the Ban blog at all?
on March 24, 2008 on 10:33 am
yes
on March 27, 2008 on 7:33 am
I’m reading that it looks like Wisconsin is shelving the idea of the ban. If so, good work by rational, resonable and tolerable people like you.
on March 27, 2008 on 7:39 am
Thanks Gimper.. Of course, we know they will be back. They always come back. But we’ll be here waiting to fight them once again
on April 7, 2008 on 5:42 am
You can smoke at M on the bund at shanghai , Don’t care, food is not good , OK
I will eat elsewhere, prefer smoking
on April 8, 2008 on 1:50 pm
who the hell is captain woof and where the hell is the bund on the shanghai?
on April 18, 2008 on 9:55 am
I think that captainwoof smokes more than just cigs.
on May 29, 2008 on 9:35 pm
So it’s been a few months since I’ve visited this thread. After re-reading everyone’s posts I have one thing to say…we should publish this somewhere. This is probably the most definitive discussion on the topic that I’ve seen and everyone’s arguments were well thought out. Was kind of fun re-reading this.
So I’ll be back in AK for a bit next month and will be curious to see if Alaskancamel has quit smoking during his wife’s pregnancy like he said he would
. I believe the deal was that if she couldn’t drink or smoke then he couldn’t either and I have my wife to back me up on that statement. Somehow I doubt it ended up that way but we’ll see 
.
on May 31, 2008 on 4:09 pm
Your right alaskanspawn – this should get published somewhere. It was a great discussion and most of all it was CIVIL. I’m getting SOOOO tired of the name calling and hate language from the anti’s! – it’s as if all the good I’ve done in my 64 years is canceled out because I’ve smoked for 51 of them. I just got attacked with a rolled up newspaper (again) while smoking in a designated OUTDOOR smoking area. The law of unintended (?) consequences applies to the official smoking bans – give the unstable/self-hating freaks of this world permission to hate and they will – with a vengeance! There is one good aspect – I used to be a white liberal who thought I understood the trials of minorities – boy was I naive! I now know from first hand experience how daily doses of hate, venom and injustice can wear away your soul!
on June 2, 2008 on 10:25 am
So, I have to agree with you on the hate part ledotter. It’s everywhere these days, what with the greenies, “global warming”, health freaks, etc… I do want to clarify one thing, I do hate the smoke…not the smokers.
There are a lot of vocal haters out there but what I’m really concerned about are the quiet ones. The ones that are quietly, behind the scenes, controlling government and/or public opinion. Speculators and economists running uncontrolled in the commodities markets (oil prices anyone?). Things are happening at a frightening pace these days. The World is smaller than it’s ever been and those quiet ones are taking advantage of the media capabilities. The pace of change is overtaking common sense and rationality, all under the guise of the betterment of mankind.
I drew my line at smoking inside public buildings and I tried very hard to make that crystal clear. We talked about the fallout from that and I somewhat downplayed that scenario. I’m seeing the effect of that now, not necessarily in the smoking arena but in the price of oil, or the green movement or…well you name it, if it’s got the stamp of “better for mankind” then it’s being driven faster than people can really decide if it’s actually better or not. But, I guarantee you one thing, someone is making money from it somewhere.
Smoking seems like such a small thing and I am still strongly against it in public spaces but I’d like to hear what everyone thinks about why oil prices are going unchecked. This problem is hurting absolutely everything. Ryan, start that thread. I know you’ve touched on it but let’s hear it directly.
on June 16, 2008 on 5:41 pm
hmmmmm…notice how spawn tries to hit me here where I don’t check as often as I should.
Truth be told, I did say I would quit drinking and smoking if my wife did because of the pregnancy. I told her that anything she was going to give up it was only fair that I did the same. Sadly, she is no longer pregnant. While she was pregnant, I has quit drinking completely and reduced my smoking to a cigar a week (outside even….that was weird) and about 5 cigs a day. We are still trying to have a baby, and when she gets pregnant again, I will quit smoking. And for all of you who read too much into that, the reason I am going to do that is because the smell of smoke while she is pregnant makes her nauseous. For that reason and that reason alone, I am also not going to have any fires in the fireplace or light any candles. I may even have to reduce my bbqing.
I spoke with her doctor the other day and asked him if we should quit or not. He said…and you will love this….seeing as how he knew that I would research whatever he said and call him on the carpet on it he would be totally honest with me and not just tell me WHAT THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION SAYS HE HAS TO TELL ME. He said that the only think smoking does is rob the body of vitamin C and folic acid. As long as my wife took these supplements, she should be ok.
So I guess I should say…put that in your pipe and smoke it
)
on August 7, 2008 on 10:01 am
I appluad your fight for liberty. Anti-smoking laws are an affront to property rights and personal responsibility. It is incumbent for you to rally the Wisconsin troops. The anti-smoking lobby destroys freedoms and has yet to lose a legislative battle. Make your stand in Wisconsin!
on October 21, 2008 on 5:56 am
Why is it that all the research on tobacco is about how bad it is? Where is the research showing benefits of smoking? You think there aren’t any? We all know nicotine is a poison and smoking delivers just a small amount at a time. A smoker’s blood contains this poison and therefore will be antagonistic to some bacteria or viruses. Smile. I just lit another cigarette and I haven’t had any kind of bacterial or viral infection for over 30 years! Hasn’t anyone thought to check on the good things about smoking?
on October 22, 2008 on 9:48 am
mpls bob – I am from Illinois, the biggest nanny state in the US. I too now drive to Wisconsin to go to a bar and smoke. My husband and I have found a very friendly little bar/restaurant we enjoy. The people are friendly and the food is great. In fact I remember when it was like that in Illinois. Since January I have not visited a bar in Illinois. I will not. It is not just the smokes, it is the friendly owners, lively talk, fun crowd, that makes a place enjoyable. When I go out to spend my money I want to go to a place like this. Not a place where for part of my enjoyment I have to go stand by the dumpster. By the way, there are usually quite a few people standing around smoking outside, surely enough to keep a smoker friendly bar going. But no, as adults we can’t even choose to congregate together inside a comfortable building to enjoy a night out. The nannies in Illinois won’t let us. Go Wisconsin. Fight this deplorable statewide smoking ban. I hope you win because I’ll be up there again this summer for my two week vacation.
on May 20, 2009 on 2:11 pm
As many of you are probably now aware Wisconsin has FINALLY (and thankfully!) passed this ban. The science, government, and MAJORITY support it.
It will be implemented.
I, for one, cannot wait!
on May 20, 2009 on 2:18 pm
So, in other words, you support the tyranny of the majority? Not very nice of you. Perhaps you won’t be so willing to jump up and cheer for “democracy” triumphing when the majority decides that they don’t like something that you do.
But whatever, unti that point you can gloat and feel good about yourself for stuffing the rights of other people and others’ property so that you can have the freedom to do whatever you damn well please with blatant disregard for others.
You are an obtuse, pretentious jerkoff. I wish I didn’t have to share the same air as you. Maybe I can convince the majority that we need to snuff you out so that I can enjoy my air without having to worry about you offending me.
on November 26, 2009 on 9:10 am
Thanks! I will recommend this to all my friends.