Sangamon County is the latest municipality to succumb to the anti-smoking police. According to the State Journal-Register:
The Sangamon County Board, by an unusually narrow vote of 16 to 13, approved on Tuesday a comprehensive workplace [including bars and restaurants] smoking ban that is set to go into effect the same day as Springfield’s – Sept. 17.
Activists are ramping up efforts to foist such a ban on Peoria, too. Of course, no one is forced to patronize or work in bars or restaurants against their will, and in fact there are quite a large number of restaurants that are already smoke-free by choice. That doesn’t stop anti-smoking activists from trying to restrict private property rights so that all bars and restaurants are non-smoking by law.
It seems obvioius to me that the real goal of these organizations is to make smoking itself illegal. If that’s the case, then there are other ways to go about that than stomping on private property rights. Fight to have the FDA regulate nicotine as the drug it is. Or fight for a constitutional amendment prohibiting smoking. But as long as it is still legal to smoke, and it’s still legal for people to assemble, then it should still be legal for said assembly to smoke ’em if they got ’em.
Incidentally, the smoking gun (ha ha) in the anti-smokers’ arsenal is a number of scientific studies they use to back up their claims regarding the health hazards of environmental tobacco smoke (also known as “ETS,” “second-hand smoke,” or “passive smoke”). I think it’s fair to question those studies, or at least anti-smokers’ use of those studies, in light of this article from Junkscience.com.
[Full disclosure: I am a non-smoker; never smoked anything my entire life, although I did hand out real cigars when my son was born.]
Happened to hear VanAuken’s position on this subject firsthand last week. She said she doesn’t visit restaurants that are completely non-smoking because “it’s clear to me they don’t want me there.” She is no supporter of smoke-free Peoria.
In addition to the 2d hand smoke issue (the site you referenced is 5 yrs old by the way and there was an article in pjs last week about the hazards of THIRD hand smoke (residue picked up from clothes, furniture, rugs, etc), there’s the aesthetics of it all. Barbara smelled awful (like an ash tray) and I felt bad for the staffer who had to drive around with her all night. Let’s get her some cessation program help…
Yes, the site I referenced was written in 2001. But I was simply pointing out that anti-smoking activists appear to have a history of quoting scientific studies out of context and ignoring conclusions that don’t fit their agenda. If you accept the premise of the article and the evidence given, there’s no reason to expect that said activists have changed their tactics regarding any new studies that may have come out the past five years.
Let’s review some facts here…
FACT: Tobacco smoke is a witch’s brew of over 4000 toxic chemicals and about 60 proven carcinogens. I frankly don’t want that as an inhaled appetizer with my dinner, thank you so much.
FACT: Active smoking kills about 440,000 Americans every year … do the math and it comes out to 1200 people dead each day, every day. In two and a half days, you have a body count equivalent to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 … and it keeps repeating … over … and over … and over … and over. Bin Laden can only dream in wondrous envy of the American body count that the tobacco companies have wracked up over the years. Aren’t we morally obligated to do everything in our power to stop this massacre?
FACT: Your pro-smoking sources are cherry-picking their data far more than the anti-smoking group. My expertise is in pediatrics, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is CLEARLY linked by MULTIPLE studies to increased risk of premature birth, SIDS, increased respiratory infections, increased serious bacterial infections such as pneumonia and meningitis, increased asthma (both increasing the development of asthma and triggering attacks in those who already have the disease), recurrent ear infections (with increased risk of requiring surgery for ear tube placement) and even impaired lung development. Some studies even show worse neurodevelopmental outcomes in smoking households. I have personally cared for asthmatic patients who have ended up in the intensive care unit with an exacerbation because they went to a family gathering and were exposed to Uncle X and his cigarettes!
This is not about property rights. This is about public health. You and your outdated critics are correct – the data linking ETS to various diseases is not as strong as that for active smoking. HOWEVER, I can tell you as someone in the medical field who is familiar with this topic, the data is becoming stronger with each new study coming out, and the gestalt of the current data is that ETS is CLEARLY unhealthy and is responsible for some degree of mortality. Science & medicine haven’t been scrutinizing ETS for as long as active smoking. Do you want to wait another 30 years and find out that the current figures UNDERestimated the mortality for ETS?
Besides, if you want to talk about rights, let’s talk about the rights of non-smokers … we are the majority in this country, after all.
A smoker’s right to smoke ENDS as soon as their smoke touches another person’s lungs. I have the right to swing my fists around in the air until I turn blue, but that right ends as soon as my fist connects with someone else’s face. That’s called assault, and the last time I checked, that’s a crime. Environmental tobacco smoke equals the fist. The damage is more insidious than a broken nose, but it is real nonetheless. Smoking in my presence is a violation of MY rights.
You mention a constitutional amendment to ban smoking. Well, we in the anti-smoking camp do have the example of history to guide us. The constitutional prohibition of alcohol worked SO well in the 1920’s. We thought we’d use more modern tactics instead of ideas that failed 80 years ago.
You also mentioned having FDA regulate nicotine like a drug. Splendid idea! We agree on something. While we’re at it, let’s add a $7.18 per pack cigarette tax to reflect the true societal impact of cigarette smoking (as estimated by the CDC) in terms of the direct costs of smoking-related illnesses and lost productivity.
Doc MJ — I agree with you that smoking kills and a terrible habit. I also don’t enjoy being around second-hand smoke. Fortunately, there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants where I can take my family and not be exposed to it. Where we disagree is this: I believe your (and my) right to a smoke-free environment “ENDS” when you (or I) step onto someone’s private property.
In fact, the flaw in your argument is that you want to “protect” those who are perfectly capable of protecting themselves by not patronizing establishments that allow smoking, yet no one is arguing to ban smoking in homes that have small children who have no choice and must breathe ETS. Aren’t the anti-smokers trying to “save” the wrong people?
Like I said, if you want to ban smoking, work to ban smoking. I’m all for that, actually. But forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for people who believe ETS is lethal, but still go to smoky restaurants and then blame the restaurant owner.