The Tacoma News Tribune reported yesterday that Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds of Bellingham expects to get an initiative on the ballot for a statewide indoor public smoking ban in Washington.
I-901, Healthy Indoor Air For All Washington, needs 225,014 signatures by July 8 to qualify for a fall public vote, according to The TNT, and Covert-Bowlds indicates that thanks to funding from the Amercan Cancer Association and the American Lung Association, the measure is likely to make the ballot this time around.
Here's the wording at present, from the Secretary of State:
Initiative Measure No. 901 concerns amending the Clean Indoor Air Act by expanding smoking prohibitions. This measure would prohibit smoking in buildings and vehicles open to the public and places of employment, including areas within 25 feet of doorways and ventilation openings unless a lesser distance is approved....Current laws allowing designation of certain smoking areas would be repealed, including current provisions allowing designation of an entire restaurant, bar, tavern, bowling alley, skating rink, or tobacco shop as a smoking area.....
One issue: Do workers in such professions forfeit their right to protection against second-hand smoke because they "know what they're getting into?" Or should they have the same sort of protections against cigarette smoke in the workplace that are accorded by law to flight attendants?
This article (last graf) reports there are statewide indoor smoking bans in California, Connecticuit, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. Florida too, except there, smoking is allowed in bars that serve no food at all.
Restaurant, bar and casino operators will be out in force against the Washington measure, claiming economic ruin based on dire predictions customers will migrate en masse to tribal casinos, bars and buffets, where the measure cannot be enforced due to tribal sovereignty.
Excuse me while I pull out the world's smallest violin. The alternative is more citywide indoor public smoking bans, which will produce an even more unbalanced playing field than a statwide ban.
A statewide indoor public smoking ban will get my vote, if it gets on the ballot.
You want a coffin nail; do it at home, or take a walk.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 31, 2005 02:33 PM | Email ThisI'm surprised such an opinion is found here on Sound Politics. What ever happened to this being a free country?
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 02:45 PMEditorial
Dolts are back!
Yes, those folks don’t have enough to do with their lives are back with
I-901, which would ban public smoking everywhere. They have started with
A large warchest of $83,000.00. Will they make the ballot this time?
Anyone’s guess. Don’t smoke? Don’t like it? Don’t care?
Well, here is a little ECON 101 for you. We’ve been looking at newspaper stories from all around the country where smoking bans have taken place. Here’s what you can expect over the first two years:
Large “chain” restaurants that never allowed smoking will see little or no
Change.
Restaurants with lounges that allowed smoking will see some drop in their food business and a permament 30-45% drop in their bar business. Some will make it as is, some will sell/go out of business. A number of staff will be layed off. Some changes you will see right away, others take time.
Stand-Alone Bars/Non-Tribal Gaming
This is were the worst of a smoking ban will be felt. At first, these
Establishments will see a 70% drop in business…if they are anywhere close to a tribal gaming. Those who can survive that hit will see a permanent loss of 30-45% loss in business. Small family-owed taverns and bars usually
can’t survive long and are the first to go. “Mini-Gaming Venues” will lay off dealers, bartenders and wait staff. Since 80% of their customers smoke..these customers will flee to where their business is wanted. The tribal venues! Many local bars/gaming establishements have not recovered the business they lost in Pierce County from the ban in early 2004.
Just because you see a lot of people dancing, doesn’t mean the club is making money.
Free Entertainment-A thing of the past
Not too long into a ban, business owners who had the income to pay for dance bands and other entertainment will have to charge a cover charge to make up for the loss. Others will raise the prices and others will just quit having bands, etc. These are “promotional” items, not where they make money.
Private Clubs like the Elks, Eagles, VFW, American Legion and the like can take a terrible hit. Tacoma Elks is unique for being non-smoking. All
Of these organizations have had chapters close for lack of business due to smoking bans all over the country.
Tribal Venues
The tribes don’t have to report income, but it is pretty safe to say
They will profit and do very, very well. Just try to get a parking place or a table at a tribal venue after a ban.
Taxes
About a year or so into a ban, politicians will scratch their heads and wonder where the tax revenue went and why the local unemployment rate went up.
They still need the same amount of money as before so will go looking for it where they can. Hang on to your wallets!
Groups that get a smoking ban in place will tell you that all the local
Businesses are doing great or they will say the businesses owners just don’t know how to run one or it’s a downturn in the economy. They will tell you it won’t effect anyone at all and that non-smokers will flock to the places they
couldn’t go before. In all the cities and states that have enacted bans that has never happened. Some will say “But in California…” The California Law allows smoking at outdoor venues. Most of California has weather that will allow “patio” dinning/dancing. Not true in most of the country.
Interesting to note that those who champion small businesses are
The first to want a smoking ban! What does that tell you?
“Who’s to say the way a man should spend his day?”-Paper in Fire
John Cougar Mellencamp
We’re interested in your comments. Send to: southentertainment@hotmail.com
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 02:47 PMIt is difficult to make a good analogy for the smoking ban. I believe that people should be able to drink and eat, and yes, smoke to their detriment. Everyone's got to die of something I guess.
I think drunk driving isn't too far off as a comparison. Both excessive drinking and smoking are harmful actities yet legal. The only problem arises when when they effect other people.
Someone should be allowed to down a fifth of booze if they want, but not allowed to get into a car and drive.
An interesting health angle I have heard goes something like this : If someone wants to hold a rock concert and have all of the exit doors locked and chained, should they be able to or be forced to abide by the fire codes requiring open exits?
If someone wants to attend a concert that isn't a death trap, they can make that choice and go somewhere else? Right? The state says no, it is simply too dangerous to allow and license.
Another question is should restauants be able to serve raw hamburger to patrons even at the risk of them getting E coli. However, rightly or wrongly, the local and state health department will not allow one to do this. Too much of a public health hazard.
I think the smoking ban will pass with bi-partison support across the state especially with all of the economic studies showing that there is a neutral or beneficial impact on business.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 02:51 PMMoreover, as soon as you stick your head through the door of some joint, you do know if it's smoky or not, and you can decide based on that whether to go in. Many people work that way right now.
In contrast, it would be a lot more work for each interested patron to check if the exits are properly accessible and open.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:00 PMI'm a former smoker as well. The reality of it is that this is not a clear cut case either way. It would appear that second hand smoke does in fact cause harm. so there is a case to ban these things that even libertarians can support. Besides which, people are still quite able to stink up their own homes if they'd like, or to go for a walk outside.
the sex analogy was my favorite so far. Has anyone been to California? do you know how nice it is to go out in the evening and catch a great band at LA's Spaceland and to come home smoke free? I think they did have a special room there that was on seperate ventilation. You could smoke in there, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable compromise.
Many other states and cities have enacted bans as well with no negative economic effect:
Smoking Ban Economic Studies
http://www.smokefreeohio.org/EconomicImpact.pdf
Thus, the only business that will suffer is perhaps tobacco sales.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 03:08 PMHa. Funny. In other words : calling all trolls?
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 03:13 PMTimothy - "My libertarian impulses are conflicting with my lungs." ...... You should exercise both. The libertarian wing of the Republican Party is dying. It needs to be revitalized, or it will move to a third party. Mix that with a dose of Democrats who are tired of the totalitarian tendencies of their own party, and there might actually be a viable third party.
Boston (and a few others) - "It's never a good thing when government reduces people's options, whatever the motive."
.... Exactly. Market forces do already take care of this "problem." If legislators and everyone else worked up into a frenzy about a smoking ban (the usual hysteria) were thinking LOGICALLY, they would simply pass a law that requires establishments to place an easily visible SIGN that informs people of whether it is a smoking establishment or not. That way, the orfactory challenged folks wouldn't get stuck in a smoking place without knowing it. The rest wouldn't even have to get out of their cars.
But, unfortunately, the impulse in both parties is to CONTROL. When they can't spend time finding new ways of spending our money (which is hard to do with a budget deficit), they start making laws like this one.
You'd better come up with an analogy that works & repose your question.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:27 PMWow. Ok. You got us. That's very very libertarian and I think you grabbed on to Skor's anology with both hands.
However, I think a great majority of the people do want some minimal government regulation against
"sex on tables" in a restaurant unless they have closed it to shoot a porno.
I also believe that it is discriminatory and wrong to limit people from frequenting an establishment such as a "smoking allowed" bowling alley because they don't want to breathe smoke. I can go to a bar and not drink, so why should I have to smoke just because I want to be somewhere, smokers have no right to establish public, smoking allowed establishments. Either an establishment is public, or it is private. If public, then anyone should be alowed to enter the establishment and for the above reason, not be subjected to smoke.
Smokers, hear this loud and clear. SMOKE DOES NOT STAY WITHIN DEFINED BOUNDARIES. That is all you need to know to understand why the only place you have a right to smoke is when you are all by yourself, or with another smoker or smokers in a private residence or private establishment where everyone present has consented to the self destructive act of smoking.
Until you can figure out a way to contain smoke within your personal boundaries, you have NO RIGHT TO SMOKE near anyone else who does not want to smoke.
Figure it out, it's not that hard.
If yes (like Iguana), then fine.
Posted by: Skor Grimm on January 31, 2005 03:37 PMIn the first place, the bans on smoking that have been enacted in places like California (I was in the room when they passed their ban) and New York are based on junk science. There is no substantial evidence that exposure to "second hand smoke" has serious health consequences of the cancer and emphysema variety. It will make your clothes smell, and it may make your eyes water, but it won't kill you. And besides, there is such a thing as a fan that can direct most of it outside.
Second, whether to allow or not to allow smoking is a choice that business owners should be allowed to make in a free society. If we're ready to ban tobacco, fine and dandy, but as long as it's legal to smoke at all, people should be able to decide whether to allow smoking in the spaces they control.
Junk science is a bad foundation on which to erect public policy; that's true with respect to smoking and it's true with respect to the desire on the part of some people to teach scientifically-disguised creationism to school children.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 03:38 PMI do not have a problem with laws against public sex. These laws are an age-old tradition based on an instinctual need for privacy. Sex is a private activity in the mainstream of every culture on the planet.
There is simply no analogy between one activity that we conduct privately by instinct and another activity for which instinct provides no guidance.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:43 PMHowever, I think a great majority of the people do want some minimal government regulation against
"sex on tables" "
Erik - as long as there is a prominent sign that says "Beware - Sex allowed on tables" .... what's the problem? Are you going to walk in anyway?
should a members only club staffed entirely by volunteers be allowed to have smoking?
Posted by: err head on January 31, 2005 03:46 PMIf we are going to be banning thngs, I say start with small whiny children on airliners, requiring them to be put into kennels and checked as luggage.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on January 31, 2005 03:47 PMSkor - you won't find me in that category, except on things like murder. But, having said that, once rules are defined, they should be followed until they are changed. Hence, my anger at GreGore's illegitimate "victory."
If bars/restaurants want to be smoke filled that's ok with me. I won't go there. Children shouldn't be allowed in there either.
The non-smoking section of any bar/restaurant is like a non-chlorinated section in a public swimming pool--it doesn't exist.
The biggest problem I have is going INTO public buildings like WorkSource, the library, the County Courthouse, Safeway, Burlington Coat Factory, Wal-Mart, etc. Some employees block the front entrances of buildings and you have to walk through a cloud of smoke in order to go inside.
This looks and smells so unprofessional that unless I HAVE to go into that building I refuse to walk the smoke gauntlet. It only takes a few seconds to get that smoke all over your clothes, and an allergic reaction can then occur.
Posted by: JG on January 31, 2005 03:50 PMCan we ban traffic jams too? I totally hate those.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:51 PMJeff - Well, with that logic, you should prepare to loose your right to own and carry a gun, except perhaps in certain government defined locations.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 03:51 PMSkor - (I'll answer this one too) Because I care about YOUR freedom. If I don't care about your freedom than I can't protect my own.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 03:53 PMRaoul - that is a damned good idea.
I'm willing to compromise folks. If we can implement the ban on toddlers on flights, I'll vote for the ban on smoking in public places.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 03:56 PMJG - Can you see? Can you read a sign?
I have no earthly idea what you are talking about Skor.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 04:05 PMI'm rather ambivalent about it myself. On the one hand, I can't stand smoking establishments (although I do on occasion frequent them), but on the other hand I do wonder what is wrong about a bar owner deciding to allow smoking in his place.
I think we're all agreed that there are some behaviors the government should regulate and others that it shouldn't. The question is, what makes smoking a "sex on the table" issue and not something else.
The answer is obviously the health impact. Smoking is not just bad for you, it harms those around you too. It is in the public interest to regulate smoking in areas considered public.
Now if I were a bar owner, and I-901 passed, I think I'd quietly convert my place into a private club which anyone could join for life for a purely nominal fee.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on January 31, 2005 04:09 PMConservatives who live in Blue States had best be very, very careful about supporting arbitary intrusions of the state into personal affairs; in the long run, who do you think it going to suffer the most if this kind of stuff gets more prevalent than it already is? Hint: it won't be the majority.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 04:09 PM"Sorry libertarians, but I might have to vote for this, too. I am a former cigarette smoker with asthma and a child with asthma. "
"JG - Can you see? Can you read a sign?"
Is it in Nepalese?
Posted by: smegma on January 31, 2005 04:17 PMI knew it. Someone was going to now argue first or secondhand smoke isn't a health hazard and doesn't cause cancer.
The negative health effects of smoking (directly or secondhand) are well documented and are non-partison.
Below is the EPA information on second hand smoke
Negative heatlh effects of secondhand smoke
Libertarians have some good ideas. But they also want to legalize drugs and gay marriage. Not everyone agrees with them.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 04:24 PMOther than the fits and starts of the initial months, just about NO ONE here, except avid smokers, would want to go back. And while my days of going to bars is pretty much over, I do not miss for a second the clear air of the many restaurants I continue to patron. I have seen NO impact in patronage, by the way. Every restaurant and every bar is just as jam-packed as ever.
I don't smoke, and as a quasi-libertarian would not normally want a ban, but now that it is in place I hope smoking is banned EVERYWHERE but in the confines of personal homes.
My two cents...
Posted by: JZ Smith on January 31, 2005 04:26 PMThe argument that cigarrette smoke invades other people's personal space doesn't pan out either. Don't bring your personal space into a smoking establishment. Use your right to choose and go elswhere. No one is forcing you to frequent the establishment that allows smoking. You do not have to be there.
People that want to restrict the freedoms of others are scary.
Posted by: BenJCarter on January 31, 2005 04:33 PMCritics of the EPA report argue that by normal statistical standards, none of the 11 U.S. studies included in the EPA report showed a statistically significant increase in the simple overall risk measure, and that EPA should therefore have been unable to conclude that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers. These critics are misrepresenting a small part of the total evidence on secondhand smoke and lung cancer.
The consistency of study results in the highest exposure category and exposure-response trends discussed above also apply to the U.S. studies. For example, seven of the 11 U.S. studies had fewer than 45 cases, making statistical comparisons difficult. Nonetheless, eight of the 11 had increased overall risks, and for the seven studies which reported on risks by amount of exposure, the highest exposure groups in all seven had increased risks. While the 11 U.S. studies are not, by themselves, conclusive, they do support the conclusion that secondhand smoke is causally associated with lung cancer.
Second-hand smoking is not the same as first-hand smoking, and the studies that have been done with the goal of showing health risks in SHS took significant liberties with this distinction, actually exposing their rats to higher levels of smoke that a first-hand smoker gets. This is junk science and even the EPA more or less admitted it.
But the thrill of bossing other people around, especially the less-virtuous, is greater than our respect for science and liberty, sadly.
JZ Smith, California's smloking ban was not the result of an initiative, it was an act of the legislature, and like I said previously, I was there when it passed (the Senate Judiciary Committee). The arguments in favor came from the labor unions, who claimed smoke was a health risk to workers, and the arguments in opposition came from little bar owners. To satisy the opposition, an exception was crafted for bars in which all the employees were members of the owner's family, and that's still the law today.
Before any government ban on any behavior is enacted, we should ask "what threat or crisis is there to justify this loss of freedom?", and if we don't we're asking for trouble.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 04:49 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 04:50 PMNah. Smoke and drink all you want. Smoke 3 packs a day. You are entitled. Down a fifth of good whiskey.
Eat bad food with trans-fat. Most of us do. I might tonight. :)
Just don't detrimentally effect the rest of us by drinking while driving or filling public places with cancer causing smoke.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 04:59 PMHaving disclosed my financial interest in widespread smoking, I have to say I support an indoor smoking ban in public places. This is one of those tough issues that (small-l) libertarians have to grapple with. I'm generally unopposed to flagrant personal liberties. But the problem with public smoking is that it invades the airspace of the non-smoker. I'm not sure whether or not there is a real health hazard from infrequent casual second hand smoke (not talking about ongoing prolonged exposure). But many people, myself included, find that cigarette smoke makes them feel ill.
The concept of personal liberty doesn't give a person the right to pee on somebody else's shoes at a restaurant. Nor does it give the right to blow obnoxious fumes into other people's noses.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 31, 2005 05:11 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 05:13 PMInteresting to note that all of you want Dino as gov! (I do too) His position is that business should decide this issue!
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 05:16 PMI know there are answers to things we don't like besides, "There ought to be a law..." I wish it was the last resort, rather than the first.
Posted by: South County on January 31, 2005 05:19 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 05:24 PMOk Stefan. That was a good analogy and rivals Skors' analogy of "sex on the table" and smoking.
I had thought mine of a locked exit rock concert hall would catch on but it didn't.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 05:24 PMYes. Yes. Your point is?
As I said "If bars/restaurants want to be smoke filled that's ok with me. I won't go there."
I find that some smokers think smoking is a RIGHT, but it is a privilege. A privilege that must be tempered with respect of others. If no respect is given, then laws must be passed. I can not play music as loud as I want in public even though I may think it is my RIGHT to do so, others be damned.
By way of analogy, some people in my rural county still think it is their RIGHT to burn trash, including plastic materials, in burn barrels. This is not legal anywhere in Washington, but people still do it because they do not care about people's right to breathe, they only care about their right (they think) to burn toxic materials.
Nathan - sorry, but I and others do not agree with this statement. As far as I am concerned, you can go to a bar that has a sign that says, "Sex allowed on table," and after the deed is done, you can have a smoke, as long as there also is a sign that says, "Smoking allowed."
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:28 PMSorry, had to get my Dachshund out of the ashtray again...
Lost my train of thought...
Posted by: smegma on January 31, 2005 05:31 PMThere are two ways for you to solve your problem: a) take on enough personal responsibility to stay out of smoking establishments, or b) impose your tastes on everybody else in the whole world, even at the expense of liberty, principle, and all that nasty stuff.
So why is b) preferable to a) in your view of life, the universe, and everything?
I could make the same argument on another topic, to wit: Biblical creationists annoy me, and I don't want their nonsensical, smelly rhetoric passing through my ears. So should I deal with this taste of mine by: a) avoiding them, or b) banning the expression of their ideas in the public square? And I can certainly argue that bad ideas have worse consequences than bad personal habits.
So what's it going to be?
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 05:33 PMNow I know what to do to really improve public health.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 05:39 PMYou are exactly right, Richard. The totalitarians like to get laws passed that "everyone can agree on," but then use the precedent to pass another law that ONLY THEY AGREE ON.
So, when you take away a bar owners right to have smoking if he damn well pleases, it's not too many steps before we are taking away your right to own a gun if you damn well please.
Slippery slopes should always be avoided. They are real.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:39 PMI wonder when someone with no interest in guns, is going to demand to be able to enter a gun shop or gun range without fear of being shot.
Posted by: Dave on January 31, 2005 05:45 PMErik - I am guilty as charged on the first count. The so-called War on Drugs is a joke.
On the second charge, no, I am not for gay marriage that is sanctioned by the state. Actually, I am not for ANY marriage that is sanctioned by the state.
I believe the state should get it's dirty paws out of marriage entirely. Marriage is a contract, and if it is sanctioned and licensed by the state, the state decides what the contract is. I think private individuals are prefectly capable of defining their own marriage contracts. And, if you are religious, you can use the marriage contract your church defines for you.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:46 PMAs much as you try to justify it by saying that secondhand smoke doesn't do enough harm to warrant smoking, you are still damaging the health of those around you, forcing them to go out of there way to protect their health. It is selfish to claim a territory to smoke and force the public community to abide by your plume of smoke
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 05:49 PMNah. I like it. It is only banned if it is a concentration of .01 percent in one's bloodstream while driving.
Thought I would fine REAL Republicans here, not half-baked Demos...
Actually some of the strongest supporters of the smoking ban in Washington State and other states are republicans.
For starters Mayor Bloomber (R) in NY. Church groups are also going to be playing a big part in passing I-901 as they supported the earlier one. The largest sponser of the earlier ban in Pierce County is a republican. A numbr of republican legislators have also been pushing for a ban on the state level.
On the other hand, some of the opponents of the ban will be democrats who smoke.
In fact, there is a very high correlation to the support of the ban and whether one is a smoker or not rather than political affiliation.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 05:49 PMLiz - the evidence about second hand smoke is on the shelf right next to the study proving global warming. Check the Hysteria Section if you can't find the right shelf.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:49 PMDave - that's the next step. That's part of the motivation here for the environmental Nazis.
I hope nobody here believes that the Seattle Silly Council isn't above banning auto emissions in Seattle.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:53 PMIn California, the smoking ban was very much a party line issue, as it came down to the pro-union people on one side and the pro-liberty people on the other; a classic labor vs. business showdown. So let's don't be too cute about it - it's not a question of whether you smoke or not, it's a question of whether you're qualified to boss me around or not.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 05:55 PMDang, you're so right Mr. Bennett!
Fat bastards also just take up too much space generally, and the conflict with Seattle's dense development objectives, so I think we should ban the fat bastards. And, I'm serious.
Let's give them cigarrettes - I hear it curbs the appetite. Plus, since they can't smoke in public places, it might help keep their fat arses out of Dairy Queen.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:59 PMAll the arguments for smoking fail simple logical tests because smoking is unique in that it fills the air around the smoker and causes others nearby to inhale that smoke against their choice.
A smoker's rights end where a non smoker's rights begin, and in any place, even the open air outdoors where a non-smoker is present, there can thus be no smoking that is not invading the non-smoker's right.
Smoking is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
You might try to make the same argument with loud music, and you would be correct if that music was loud enough to cause harm. We have noise laws, so why can't we have smoke laws?
Folks there are no rational arguments for smoking. It does not matter if you are a liberal, conservative or libertarian this is simply an issue of the physics of smoke and there can be no respect for rights with something that does not resepct boundaries.
It's an open and shut case. Oh, and by the way, smokers and smokers advocates, you are outnumbered, so when these laws come up to the vote, you can complain all you want about the tyranny of the majority, but there will be a clear majority that recognizes the simple facts of of the physics and dangers of smoke. Your're gonna lose, so get used to it.
Nathan - it's all connected. If you can take away a business owner's right to allow smoking if he wants (which has no constitutional basis) under the rubric of "public health," then you can take away my right to own a gun using the same precendent.
But, any way, I'll trade away those rights if we can get rid of the fat bastards and the crying kids on flights.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:11 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 06:15 PMThat's exactly right, Mr. Bennett, and it IS scary.
As I always say: When the far right and the far left get together on something, the rest of us get screwed!
Really what is being called far left and far right these days aren't really far apart. They are only separated by 2 issues: abortion and gays.
I think this might lead to a third party eventually for people that care about the things our founders cared about.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:17 PMPractically, this is pretty hard and possibly costly to implement. It's much easier to simply ban smoking from public places. As much as I am not for banning any personal freedom, this one has to go.
To any smoker that this inconveniences to the point that you quit, you can thank all of us who voted to save your life later. And if you don't care for living and you want to die, please choose a means of suicide that is less annoying and costly to those around you.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 31, 2005 06:22 PMFar from it. That attitude is exactly what I fight against. I don't want you to define for me and Mr. Bennett what is open and what is shut.
By the way, didn't you know that trigger pulling can be the result of all sorts of things that have nothing to do with will? Really, the trigger puller is a victim too.
(Just to clear up - I don't smoke and I hate to be around smoke. It's the freedom I care about.)
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:22 PMNope - it's much easier for you to simply keep your pristine lungs out of a smoking establishment.
Next, Jeff is going to be arguing for banning the sale or rubbers in the corner drug store.
(hey, why is ph..armacy considered questionable content?)
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:27 PMHow many things give off smoke? We have smoky factories, especially power plants, smoky barbecues, fireplaces, wood stoves, campfires, cars, SUVs, snowmobiles, power boats, the list is practially endless because smoke is a byproduct of the oxidation of hydrocarbons which is as close to a universal phenomenon as you're likely to find; even perfume is a form of smoke.
Eash of these forms of smoke is regulated, but none of them is banned outright. In each case, public policy strives to strike a balance of the liberties and other interests, it doesn't just lash out at a minority "because it can".
We're not talking about laws of physics, we're talking about laws of Washingtonians.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 06:29 PMI feel a little bit sorry that these people may lose their jobs, but there are ways to handle this. I use to live in CA, and the way they handled it there was to allow to allow owner and single employee bars to exist as smoking bars. These became the bars where smokers hang out. Since they were one employee, and one owner, they were small and about the only thing one could do there was drink or smoke, so there was no reason for anyone else to go there and this was a pretty good solution.
As for all the other bars that are larger, sports bars, pool halls, etc. they were as packed as ever with the 35 Million people that live in CA when I left.
And why I generally don't feel sorry at all for these people is all the times I've had to go into a bar and breath smoke when I did not want to for the sake of some people who wanted to smoke. They never gave a rip about me, so why should I give a rip about them?
Finally, when autos came in to existence, a lot of wagon manfacturers went out of business. Too damn bad, technology changes with time, we learn with time. The only gaurantees should be that we are not harmed by our neighbor. There is nothing that says that things there might be something that puts someone out of business. Too bad. Happen all the time.
What we've learned over time is that smoking is really stupid behavior for those who want to live. Smart people just don't do it anymore.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 31, 2005 06:33 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 06:40 PMBut, anyway, I'm also tired of sitting in nice restaurants next to people with flatulance. Ever had that happen? Sitting there with a nice looking woman, and then the fat bastard next to you let's one rip? Foul smell, ruins everything ... can we do something about that while we are banning smoking? At least "No Flatulance Establishment" signs, and "Flatulance Allowed"?
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:49 PMIguana -- I would agree with this logic if your gun was going off shooting random people. The thing is, your gun isn't hurting anybody, but the smoking is. Should the person next to you be protected from you shooting them? Yes. Should they be protected from you shoving harmful toxins down their throat. Yes.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 06:54 PMMr. Bennett, I believe you are grossly misinformed about the differences between smoke from a cigarette and smoke from a fireplace. We are talking about extremely harmful toxins that cause cancer, not bonfire smoke. They may look the same when they waft through the air, but they certainly are very different.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 06:59 PMRight after we ban farting.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 07:00 PMLet's try some other ones!
Generating electricity from a coal plant is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Proselytizing is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Protesting a vote is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Faring is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Excersizing the first amendment right of freedom of assembly is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Posted by: Aaron on January 31, 2005 07:43 PMMatt should not be so quick to embrace another Nanny law - devised to control freedoms....
No one would even think about smokers if there hadn't been such a rabid anti-tobacco campaign launched by the United Nations several years ago!
This campaign was the International anti-tobacco treaty. (the Democrats loved this and have been pressuring the Bush administration to sign it for years!)
Much of the health studies and science used in the smoking health risk reports are tainted and flawed. This has been proven....look it up. Especially the reports of disasterous health effects of second hand smoke. They're just not accurate.
That being said, ....smoking can be unhealthy. Especially if you have (pre-existing) chronic lung conditions, asthma, illness, etc... Is it worse than car exhaust or greasy food on the stove? Probably not - but smoke from a cigarrette is more constant....so it can be more of a pollutant.
This anti-smoking campaign was born in the UN - and embraced by liberal Democrats! For that reason alone - I am skeptical and would live just fine around smokers - knowing that they have the freedoms our unique country allows - and I have the freedom to avoid the smoke if I wish.
It's really time to stop reacting to the hot-button issues the Liberals throw at us! Each time we lose a freedom...we lose what makes us American.
But the thrill of bossing other people around, especially the less-virtuous, is greater than our respect for science and liberty, sadly. -- Richard BennettGreat idea, Matt. The initiative apparently won't affect tribal establishments, but that should be of little concern. You mentioned that people can still smoke outdoors. As I understand it, though, that "right" is being challenged in several places. So after you get this taken care of, maybe you can devote some attention to the horribly unhealthy food people are still allowed to eat in fast-food (and other) places. After that, what? Hmmm. Alcohol really does cause a lot of misery. Perhaps you could go for a ban on it. I know it's been shown to have health benefits in small amounts. Maybe you could have the government dispense small, therapeutic doses of it in conjunction with a ban. /sarcasm Posted by: Boonie on January 31, 2005 07:52 PM
But we both grew up in houses with parents that did and we DESPISE it.
That being said, I say NO BAN.
I think if a public establishment wants to be a smoking establisment let the market do its work. There will be customers that shun it and those that flock to it. It is NO BUSINESS of the government how an owner runs his business as LONG as he is running it within the confines of the law. To the best of my knowledege, cigarettes and cigars are still very much legal and a HUGE source of tax revenue.
I too own stock in one of those 'dreaded, horrible purveyors of filth', a tobacco company and will continue to enjoy my profits as long as they are presenting for sale to those who CHOOSE to buy it, a legal product.
Posted by: Cheryl on January 31, 2005 07:53 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 08:02 PMAlso, you are trying to ignore what is actually in cigarettes: Among other things: arsenic (rat poison), ammmonia, carbon monoxide, lead, butane...
dave,
Nobody is forcing me into a bar, but everytime I walk down the street I am constantly walking through clouds of smoke. I can't go to some restaurants, I clearly can't go to any bars, and there are numerous public centers I can't go without inhaling smoke.
Simple question for all who support free smoking: how can an conscious act that kills tens of thousands second-hand inhalers every year and is known to cause cancer, respiratory infections, asthma and heart disease in people who are adversely affected by public smoking, be legal?
Should I be able to shoot bullets randomly into the sky all day long even though they come down and kill people sometimes?
Thats not going to happen. Washington is way behind the curve on smoking bans.
The following states already have smoking bans:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
None of these states had any adverse economic effect.
States which are considering going smokefree in 2005 are :Minnesota, Maryland, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Vermont, and possibly Pennsylvania.
Ireland, Scotland have bans and Australia and England are implementing bans as well. Smoking is already banned in Vancouver an much of Canada.
.. maybe you can devote some attention to the horribly unhealthy food people are still allowed to eat in fast-food . . .places. Alcohol really does cause a lot of misery. Perhaps you could go for a ban on it.
These are perfect analogies...that is if the inititive would outlaw smoking in any manner as prohibition did alcohol. But it doesn't.
Eating fast food and drinking booze can be bad for you, but the damage is limited to the person consuming the product. Thus, under the libertarian standpoint, one would be at worst exercising their liberty to eat (badly) and drink.
The smoking initiative, however, only bans one from releasing toxic smoke indoor public areas where others have to breathe it. Smoking will still be legal.
Therefore, there is a big difference between outlawing an activity and forcing it upon others.
People have no liberty interest in forcefeeding others Big Macs or Tofu for that matter.
Asserting that one should have a right to force another to drink bourbon is nonesense as well.
Those opposed to the indoor public smoking ban are essentially saying not only they have a right to smoke but that they have a right to make others inhale the cancer causing toxic smoke they they are exhaling. That's not freedom, its tyranny.
As far as business owners, the studies in every state with a ban have shown that there is no adverse economic effect.
Other than that, it is reasonable that businesses have some basic regulations for employee and patrons health such as not leaving mayonaise out for a week poisening them, not serving E Coli burgers killing them, not wiring your business with extension cords and frying them, and not spraying the tables with DDT to clean them.
What? Businesses should have the right to endanger the public this way if they want? Comon.
The "market" works well for consumer preference decisions, not for hazardous and life threatening conditions.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 09:18 PMI don't go into smoking restaurants, it's that simple. However, I DO have to walk PAST/THROUGH bunches of smokers huddling out on the streets ON PUBLIC, TAXPAYER PAID FOR THOROUGHFARES, SIDEWALKS AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS which is equally disgusting.
Better they be in a building whose owners welcome them and approve of them.
This initiative is one of the most egregious examples of "nanny-state-ism" in existence. Nobody in these commentsd has responded to the fundamental question of the debate: If smoking bothers you so much, why don't you go somewhere else? Nobody forces you to be around smokers or frequent smoking businesses.
I happen to have a sensitivity to strong aerosol-based odors. I get strong headaches whenever exposed to something as simple as hairspray or perfume. Why isn't anybody suggesting a prohibition on strong perfume? Using your arguments, it "invades my personal airspace" (in my mind, you sacrifice your "personal airspace" when you enter the public domain), it could "cause health problems."
Aside from the obvious economic impact on small businesses, this simply boils down to liberty. A person's opinion on this is a perfect test of one's dedication to liberty. Most of the time, liberty and self-interest are easily reconcilable but in this case, it is not so simple. Non-smokers must clearly weigh their dedication to liberty, since in this case liberty is at odds with personal self-interest. Sadly, I think the majority of people in this state will gladly sacrifice the liberty of someone else for their own selfish comfort. I am disappointed in you all.
And for the record, I am a non-smoker.
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 09:47 PMAnd when it hits the ballot it will pass by a mile. Just wait. Hurray!!! I hate cigarette smoke and so do a WHOLE lot of other people!~
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 09:51 PMWalking by someone on the street who is smoking is about as much risk to your health as anything I've mentioned here. The only healh risk of second-hand smoke is from prolonged and heavy exposure. Just as someone who is allergic to food avoids whatever they're allergic to, and just as I avoid prolonged exposure to aerosols, people can easily avoid prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke.
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 09:56 PMWhy? Because it always wafts over at me and it irritates my throat. Bleh! Get over it and put your stinky smokes out, people. I'm tired of going to local parks for fireworks and not being able to get away from everyone's cig smoke flying everywhere. Just because you smoke outside doesn't mean others aren't affected! Really!
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 09:59 PMI suggest that those who dont care about your freedom of goverment, MOVE TO CALIFORNIA. I smoke, but I dont smoke where non smokers are. I respect other's "SPACE".
And I Dont support this ban, not because I smoke, but because It Takes away my Freedom. It allows goverment to CONTROL another aspect of our lives.
Jeff & Nathan....I hope you don't have any habits that could in the FUTURE become ILLEGAL because of Goverment Meddling.
Posted by: chris on January 31, 2005 10:01 PMLiberty when it is brainless and destructive to a community isn't liberty to the people. Just remember, every time you crack a smoke in front of someone, you are injuring them -- probably against their will.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:05 PMAnyone who argues second-hand smoke is not toxic is not being honest. However, we are exposed to many harmful substances on a daily basis with little long-term effects. Smoking is simply a convenient and popular target, which is why we're having this debate in the first place, rather than, say, banning vehicle exhaust.
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 10:08 PMYah, I'm REALLY radical on this. Go ahead and heap scorn on me. It's alright. You're not changing my mind. :-) Cig smoking is SO last century.
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 10:12 PMBrainless and Destructive??? For Pete's Sake...People have been smoking for centuries, and you (non-smokers) aren't dead yet....
You have a choice, and perhaps more choices than the Smoker, so who's rights are being limited?
This is America, and I for one want to keep my freedoms.
I don't have any habits that are constantly doing significant damage to those around me.
Greg- Prolonged and heavy exposure aren't the only causes of illness and disease from smoking. I think you would be surprised how easily casual secondhand smoke can injure the human body.
You guys are so caught up in what you think it means to be Republican, that you fail to recognize reality.
Did you all vote for Will Baker, too?
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:14 PMI may be a conservative girl, but even I have my limits.
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 10:18 PMIn legislating these types of public health laws, we must disregard those who are unnaturally sensitive to such smoke. We don't ban perfume for my case, we don't ban nuts for those with allergies, and we don't ban fireworks because of people with sensitive hearing. Those with specific health problems associated with cigarette smoke should regulate their own behavior as anybody else with a sensitivity does.
Also, while you're digging up a study which supports your claims, please respond to my comment about automobile exhaust. If you believe serious and/or acute health problems can result from casual exposure to cigarette smoke, certainly you concede the same for automobile exhaust. Therefore, do you believe we should ban the internal combustion engine?
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 10:19 PMWow!
"People have been smoking for centuries, and you (non-smokers) aren't dead yet...."
Actually, I think there hundreds of thousands of people who would disagree with you from their graves.
I think we want to protect the rights of the majority. So, when you light up at a 4th of july celebration (Michele's example), you limit the rights of the 50 people around you just so you can snatch a few drags. Would it be OK if I sprayed some acid into the air and had it land on everyone, iritating their skin? Would it be OK if I had overly-blaring speakers that actually injured everyone's ears around me? (I'm kind of fishing for alternative examples here...)
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:20 PMAs far as it being a public health problem, I believe one of the greatest failings of government is its apparent inabilty to tell people they're stupid. IK'm a smoker, and I know I am an idiot for doing it. Pass a law allowing insurance companies to reject claims for ailments caused by smoking, and have Medicaid and Medicare do the same. Forcing people to pay out of pocket for lung cancer treatment will have a much greater influence on smoking rates than hiking cigarette taxes. I would much rather have the government say "You're an idiot for smoking, so you're on your own" rather than have them curtail our freedom. Not to mention the fact that heart disease has now moved ahead of cancer as far as death rates are concerned. How long do you think it will be before the government decides that McDonalds is bad for you and bans it. Or maybe the government will agree with Dr. Atkins that carbs are the cause of obesity and outlaws sugar. It seems to me that heart disease is more dangerous than cancer, so I don't see how the government, when banning smoking, isn't moving closer to banning all things that are "bad" for us.
The problem has become the "safety net" that is in place. People are much less likely to do stupid things like smoking if they know that no one is there to catch them. Is it cruel? Maybe. But I would rather have the government give me the freedom to provide for myself as I see fit rather than control certain facets of my life with the promise of a safety net.
Posted by: Jeff on January 31, 2005 10:20 PMMichele: The air would be evem cleaner if along with the cigs we banned those fireworks.
Posted by: Dave on January 31, 2005 10:20 PMI did not know the word "Libertarian" was pseudonymous with an "arrogant self-righteous zealot." That is how you all sound.
Governments regulate many public activities, not just smoking. You all are just too smug in your desire to let everyone do anything in public they want. That's how the U.S. became the mess it is.
I am sure you would allow 18 year old high school students to smoke at school. Why not? It is their right. Just because it might influence younger students to smoke is no reason to deprive them of their "right" to smoke in public.
Conservative Republicans are NOT, and never have been libertarians.
If you even had the courtesy to ask if I mind if you smoke, I will say "No, not if you don't mind me throwing up on you."
Posted by: Cool Bob on January 31, 2005 10:22 PMIt is exactly people like you who feed the Goverment Ideas that are so BLACK & WHITE, there is no gray.
The gray with this issue is personal freedom.
If you allow goverment to control one thing, it rears it greedy head for more, and more and more.
BTW, who said I was republican??? Does my Post's read like one?
Posted by: Chris on January 31, 2005 10:24 PMAgain, it's very nice when YOU are not the one with the problem and easy to say 'too bad' , but it's a pretty big deal when you aren't so fortunate to be that healthy.
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 10:27 PM
--------
Despite the decline in mortality from coronary heart disease during recent decades, it is still the leading cause of death in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. In 1996 an estimated 476 124 residents of the United States died of coronary heart disease, representing more than one in every five persons who died in that yearl1l. In many economically developing countries, mortality from coronary heart disease has increased rapidly and has become the leading cause of death 121 . Exposure to passive smoking is very common in the general population, especially in young and middle-aged men and women. For example, 43% of children aged 2 months to I I years and 37% of adult non-tobacco users are exposed to passive smoking in the United States l31 . As such, identification of the increased risk of coronary heart disease associated with passive smoking has important public health implications.
...
Many children are exposed to passive smoking on a regular basis at home or in other environments, such as child-care facilities and schools. The health consequences of exposure to passive smoking among children, including the increased risk of cardiovascular disease, should be addressed in future studies. The only safe way to protect non-smokers from exposure to passive smoke is to eliminate this health hazard from public areas, the work place and the home environment.
AND
----
The National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program's 9th issue of the Report on Carcinogens listed ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) as a "known" human carcinogen, which indicates that there is a cause and effect relationship between exposure and human cancer incidence.
Cotinine is a major metabolite of nicotine. Exposure to nicotine can be measured by analyzing the cotinine levels in the blood, saliva, or urine. Since nicotine is highly specific for tobacco smoke, serum cotinine levels track exposure to tobacco smoke and its toxic constituents.
Involuntary exposure to ETS remains a common, serious public health hazard that is entirely preventable by adopting and enforcing appropriate regulatory policies. Smokefree environments are the most effective method for reducing ETS exposure. Healthy People 2010 objectives address this issue and seek optimal protection of nonsmokers through policies, regulations, and laws requiring smoke-free environments in all schools, work sites, and public places.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:33 PMAlso, each of those studies "increases risk of" whatever disease we're talking about. I wonder what other factors cause this risk. Maybe banning the automobile will help?
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 10:39 PMI haven't read the comments but am sure the libertarian view is well represented.
It's bad for businesses that allow smoking. If patrons don't like the indoor smoke, fine, go somewhere else, there's plenty to choose from. And nobody is forcing people to work in smoking allowed establishments.
Jeez, next thing will be banning McDonalds and Burger King.
Posted by: max on January 31, 2005 10:52 PMAmerica and Central Planning do not mix.
When Pierce County illegally and unlawfully banned smoking in private bars and restaurants the county eateries were already 78% smoke free. The is the same non-smoker percentage as the general public. What do you know the market works.
Stay in Seattle Matt - the busybody city, but keep your tyranny there. Us freedom lovers can handle our own virtue, we don't need it imposed on us.
Posted by: Jericho on January 31, 2005 10:54 PMWhat about the smoking Nazis? The ones that are complete bullies, that demand the right to endanger the health of people around them?
You are trying to push your opinion on people, and because they don't agree with you, you revert to name calling. So much for what you really think of liberty.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the car exhaust. I would really like to see the US phase out dependence on oil and bring in fuel cells.
I don't think car exhaust is doing specific targeted harm to people on a daily basis as much as smoke is. Although, I would hope we wouldn't have it forever.
Smoking is an easier targer, true. It is also a big target to hit and an important want to knock down.
Anyways... I'm signing off for the night...
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 11:04 PMCheap shot on my moving from California, I am from the PNW. I moved to CA for a while, and came back. I suppose you consider all Californians bad, etc., which is just ignorant racism. Having recently moved here I can say this. I thought CA was pretty bad, but in many ways, it's far ahead of WA.
And one important way is they get what you and Richard Bennet and DeadManVoting and many of you others don't get, which is that it's trite to talk about protecting your sacred freedom without recongnizing the fact that I've got just as much freedom to want to be left alone from breathing smoke as a smoker has freedom to smoke, except that a smoker has the additional constraint of the fact that his smoke that wafts into my face has just limited my freedom to breathe. Why is this so hard to understand?
In a contest freedoms, smoking loses. That's why smoking bans in public are an acceptable limitation that we must have.
Now to address Richard and DeadMan's ridiculous analogies. Condoms are confined to personal space and what they contain is not something that is going to silently waft its way all around like smoke, so I don't see where you are going here. I have no problem with condoms.
And don't laugh to hard about all of the smoke producing sources Richard. The joke's on you. Factories, cars, etc. do indeed produce smoke, but they do not produce smoke in a contained way that smoking indoors in public places does, do you operate your car in your garage with the door down? Furthermore, as you indicate, we've done a lot as a society to control our smoke producing sources so that they have limited harmful pollution, etc. We specifically have very strict controls on vehicle emissions to improve the quality of the "smoke" output. Now when was the last time you saw a cigarette that had an emissions control system on the end of it? And how about clove smokers, pipe smokers, cigar smokers, and the marlboro smokers who are using the heavy stuff because they like the smoke as thick as they can get it. Again, I don't get the choice to limit any of these sources in an equally beneficial way as we've done with our factory and vehicle emissions. Most importantly, we have cars and factories, etc. for a beneficial reason. They get us places, produce goods and energy, etc. We tolerate their negatives because they provide us with something positive in return. All smoking does is give the indiviudal a nicotine buzz and annoy everyone else. So that might be positive for the smoker, but certainly for noone else. I know this is a utilitarian argument, and on any other topic, I'd be for freedom, but it makes a heck of a lot more logical sense than just saying that because cars emit smoke, that justifies a smoker blowing his or her smoke my way in a restaurant.
To Jeff, this is reverse welfare, the safety net is not for you as a smoker, you are already determined to kill yourself, the safety net is for me, so I don't have to die alongside of you. And, there is a big demand for smoke free bars and restaurants, the majority of the population does not smoke and many of these people occasionally go out to eat, etc. Furthermore, there are already a lot of smoke free establishments, and believe me, I frequent them as much as I can, but why should I have to limit my freedom to go to a bar where my friends have decided to meet and that allows smoking, when you are unwilling to smoke outside so I don't have to smoke as well?
When it comes to logic, it's on the side of the non-smokers. When it comes to money, it's on the side of the non-smokers. When it comes to health, it's on the side of the non-smokers.
And most certainly, we've got time on our side too.
Head to the tribal ca$inos and be glad they are there, because the rest of WA is going to be smoke free soon.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 31, 2005 11:23 PMBecause perfume won't kill you. Ask the Malbaro Man who died of cancer. He will tell you.
Also, second hand smoke increases the chance of a heart attack by 40 percent according to a Montana Study.
Likewise, a British study determined secondhand smoke increases coronary heart disease by 50-60%.
I can't think of any other health hazard in a restaurant or bar permitted that is a great danger other than being hit by a pool cue, and that's illegal.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 11:39 PM
Ha. Yeah. But but furtunately its illegal to forceably intoxicate someone.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 11:52 PM1) Playing tackle football (no-pads) in the park with friends.
2) Skiing on a crowded slope.
3) Driving faster than 20 miles an hour. Your right to drive faster than that ends when it endangers my life.
4) How about, just driving at all? Think about how many lives it would save if we would all stop driving. Or if we all had a government trained driver. What about the poor people who have to drive for their job? That is not right. Think how many of them die every year. Or how many of them kill other people because they are driving on a second job or second shift.
5) Going to a crowded theater, bar or stadium. All theses places are death traps when a panic starts. How many times have we read about people dying mostly because there was a crowd? Clearly we need an initiative that there can be no more than 20 people in any room, anywhere, even Safeco Field.
6) Working in or building tall buildings also has to go. Remember September 11th anyone? All those poor people who had to work at Windows on The World. We must shut down the Top of the Needle Restaurant. And what about all those people who chose not to work in the Towers but were crushed by the falling building. These tall buildings need to come down. Where do I sigh the Initiative?
7) What about sports? How many kids do we lose a year to football?
8) And what about Fast Food? Clearly there needs to be a law, right!!!! Did you know that those poor people who work in those restaurants are offered discounts on the food, even free food? First they don't pay them a living wage, then they entice them in to eating that death food. This must be stopped.
9) And what about the crowded cities? The very fact that all those people live together makes it that much harder for Gaia (the earth for those of you who don't live in Seattle) to deal with all those concentrated pollutants. We must empty the cities by at least 50 percent. Your right to city dwelling ends when it endangers Gaia's ability to clean the air of your concentrated pollution.
10) And coffee??? What right do you have to order a coffee when it endangers my life? Do you know how many btu's it takes to get you that cup of coffee? Want a hot drink - drink steamed milk. Need a pick me up - go to bed an hour earlier. Quit shortening my life just for a latte - they are just putting a nail in your coffin anyway.
11) And what right do you have to live in that condo, town house or city house anyway? How much food do you grow? Why should my life be threatened working here in the country just so you can have your urban lifestyle? Grow your own &*^%@$ food. Haul your own goods into the city. Ingrates!!! There ought to be a law that all city dwellers must produce at least 20% of the food they grow every year.
12) And what about energy? Don't you know how many electrical workers die every year just to bring you electricity? Do they really have a choice about the work they do? How about how many everyday citizens that die of electricution? Think of the children!!!
13) How about blogging? Few really earn any money from it. Is there really any economic value? If bloggers have so much time to blog they should instead be relocated to the country to produce for the people. That way the full societal labor value of the individual can be realized.
14) Are you overweight? You have no right to consume the food production (labor production) of society beyond that needed to sustain you. Your gluttony is bringing diffuculty on others who have to produce for you the extra food that you eat, haul it, prepare it for you, etc. Don't you know that some of these people die each year doing this for you? But they don't really have a choice - it is their job - they are trapped working so they can provide a bare minimum for their families just so you can look like sponge bob Square Pants.
15) Do you eat meat? That takes an enourmous amount of jewels of energy to produce. Surely you can survive on soy and some green veggies. You are killing the rest of us (by destroying the planet/Earth/world/ecosystem/Gaia/harmonic cycle/cycle of life/greater good/nature) just so you can have your Salmon fillet or your steak tar tar or God forbid (I mean Gaia forbid) your caviar. Eating meat when a little rice cake, soy milk and a carrot will do? There outta be an initiative!!!! with a big budget backed by PETA, the trial lawyers, and the farmers. Surely there are not enough ranchers, herders, etc. to stop that combination.
16) And finally how about doctors? - especially the interns. Did you know that many of them eat on the run? This leads to obesity! High cholesterol, etc, because of the type of food they are forced to eat in order to eat on the run in order to what.....? provide you with health care????? Selfish of you - don't you think? How many hundreds? No, thousands? How many thousands of Doctors and other health care workers eating on the run for years die prematurely just so you can have your clinic staffed or your emergency room ready when you need it? And do they really have any choice about working? They are trapped by those high med-school costs and must work! There should be a law that doctors get one hour for lunch and that emergency rooms shut down from 8-9am, Noon-1pm and 5-6pm as well as midnight to one am for the graveyard so that all these health workers can eat a proper meal the proper way -- chewing slowly.
And no I don't smoke.
Posted by: Jericho on January 31, 2005 11:54 PMThe bars, restaurants, bowling alleys are public?
Or the bars, restaurants, etc. are private.
You need a dictionary man!!!! and a brain!
Next you'll be saying that the smoke wafting over from your neighbors 'public' porch should be illegal. What part of "right to... liberty..." do you not undertand?
Posted by: Jericho on February 1, 2005 12:00 AMOr leftist control freak free?
Posted by: Jericho on February 1, 2005 12:02 AMA lot of people are allergic to bees too. Your right to honey....
A lot of people are allergic to shell fish. Your right to have shell fish in a 'public' restaurant that might somehow get on my dead cow flesh dish....
A lot of people are allergic to cats too. Your right to a cat ....
Some people are allergic to strawberries. Your right to ....
Posted by: Jericho on February 1, 2005 12:06 AMWhen I ski, play footbal, drive, drink alcohol or coffee, eat, etc. I'm doing so through my own choice and as long as I don't force those activities on someone else, I'm affecting no one but myself. If I crash into someone while driving, I have to pay for the accident and medical care if any is needed. No one pays me for medical damages, or even apologizes when they smoke next to me in a restaurant.
That's the difference between everything you list and smoking. Smoking is an exception to the rule, that's why we have to make an exception to freedoms and ban it.
A bar might be a owned privately, but it is open to the public. Smokers and non smokers have equal freedom to enter and decide whether to drink, but they don't have the equality with smoking. As yourself why?
Smoke wafting from my neighbor's porch is just as illegal as noise wafting from my neighbor's speakers after 10 pm or my neighbor starting a fire on his property than burns my house down. His freedom ends where mine begins. Anything that does not obey the boundary of the property line between our two houses, is an infringement. Smoking is already inherently illegal because it does not respect boundaries that we have established between free persons.
Fortunately, my neighbor does not smoke.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 1, 2005 12:19 AMLiberty for the sake of liberty is never correct. The first ammedment gives us freedom of speech, but this is not freedom to incite violence, libel or express intention to harm someone such as our President.
The Second Amendment give us the right to bear arms, but this is not freedom to discharge those arms as we please, possibly damaging property, maiming or killing.
This is why most of the posters here preach a form of conservativism or objectivism and not absolute libertarianism. Freedom has its limits.
Indeed there are many freedoms worth protecting at all costs, but the right to intentionally fill the air with toxic fumes immediately proximate to another person in an enclosed indoor space is not one of those freedoms.
If you still have any doubts as to why public smoking is wrong, ask yourself if you would allow someone to bring an open container of gasoline in to a restaturant and set it next to you. Fumes are fumes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 1, 2005 01:15 AMYes they do: Choose to deal with the smoke or choose not to deal with the smoke. It's your choice, and you have to decide whether being exposed to smoke is worth hanging with you friends. Do these friends smoke? If not, why don't you suggest a non-smoking establishment, and if so, what are you doing hanging out with them (if you hate smoke so).
I can understand a few arguments to support the ban, but do not agree with them. However, the content and premise of your arguments is that you want to restrict others' freedoms for your own personal comfort and convenience. This smacks of elitism and is an affront to the principles of this land. It would seem to you that non-smokers are a superior class and deserve better privledges, while smokers are relegated to second-class status.
And FYI: there are no "established boundaries" when you're in public. How far does your "bubble" extend? Six inches? One foot? Eight feet? You don't "own" the space around you in a public place. Therefore smoke wafting into your "bubble" is as irrelevant as radio waves passing through your body, light reaching your eyes, or smells from flowers (speaking of which, some people are allergic to pollen, and prolonged exposure to pollen is known to contribute to some health problems, should we ban flora in public places too?).
Posted by: Greg on February 1, 2005 01:21 AMI don't recall anyone trying to force nonsmoking establishments to allow smoking against the owner's will. Could you refresh my memory as to where this happened?
All I see is one side saying let the business and patrons decide whether or not they want to deal with smoke, and the other wanting to ban it completely no matter what people desire.
The problem with this analysis is that it presumes first that smokers have a right to inject non-smokers with cancer causing toxins. Then if non-smokers don't like it they can just leave the area.
What if a restaurant owner placed a sign outside stating that they had the right to interveneously inject anyone who entered with cancer causing agents or other poisons at random? The owner just felt like it was their right to occasionally inject patrons and that they were demonstrating their freedom.
Upon your protest, the owner tells you if you don't like it, then don't enter.
Smokers should have the absolute right to smoke anywhere they want to despite the health hazards to themselves. The problem arises when they exhale and cause toxic cancer causing substances to enter another person's lungs. If they could keep the toxins to themselves, it wouldn't be an issue.
Smokers have no legitimate "freedom" interest to do this anymore than one believes they have the freedom to swing their fist in any direction regardless of who it might hit.
Here's a short story about "Freedom."
This person, seeing the newcomer coming toward him, extended a hand of welcome. Instead of shaking hands, which was the polite thing to do, this new arrival doubled up his fist and hit this man in the nose. "Why did you do that?" asked the man who was hit. "This is a free country, isn't it? I can do what I want to do." The man who had been hit replied, "This may be a free country, but your freedom stops where my nose begins..."
Or in the second hand smoke situation, the right to smoke ends where another person's lungs begins.
Posted by: Erik on February 1, 2005 02:12 AMThere are also people who don't want to be around smoke, and there are business owners who cater to them. This is group B.
Those of you who support a ban on smoking are Group B people who want to force Group A people to conform to your lifestyle and values. Group A people certainly share their smoke with others, but given the system of choice that we have, they aren't forcing it on Group B people, they're keeping it in their own circle.
So why is it that you Group B people think you're justified in forcing your values on others, when you would surely not appreciate having others force values and behaviors on you that you don't believe in?
It's not just a question of liberty, it's a question of manners. If we can't respect the rights of others to do stuff that we don't care to do ourselves, either in the privacy of their own homes or in public places that exist for their enjoyment, we're not very civilized people.
I go on an off with smoking, but I generally prefer mixed crowds of smokers and non-smokers to groups of strict non-smokers. It's been my experience that people who won't tolerate smokers are generally quite boring, and nothing I've read on this thread challenges that view.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 1, 2005 02:46 AMThis is the crux of our disagreement. You're insisting on being able to walk through a ring in the middle of a boxing match and not get hit.
Posted by: Dave on February 1, 2005 03:55 AMRemember, I've never smoked.
Posted by: Bad Bob on February 1, 2005 06:37 AMI felt so sorry for everyone in Seattle last summer as I watched the Fourth of July celebration. Asthmatics included. A few years ago the state enacted legislation to require buildings to do multiple complete air exchanges many times a day. That way we can fill buildings with clean air four or five times a day. Sorry about the gunsmoke that the law requires you to pump into your house.
Oh ya, don't forget the law that requires you to seal your house against air leaks. Would this be the one that when you turn on the bath fan and dryer you can only get air down the chimney of your gas or oil fired furnace or water heaters to refill the house???
Ya, more stupid laws to protect me is what I want. If I want to avoid smoke I will eat at a non-smoking restaurant. My choice, big bold period. Don't feel you need to protect me, I am a big boy.
Posted by: GP on February 1, 2005 06:51 AMAlso, enough with the complaints about smoking in open public areas. The amount of smoke that you may inhale due to the guy who is smoking in the park is miniscule compared to actually smoking a cigarette. Considering that there are some people that smoke for all of their lives and never get cancer, I'm sure you're pretty safe. It may be a nuisance, but so is the lady on the street screaming into her cellphone. Want to stop her from talking on it with the force of law? How about the chldren that run around the supermarket while their parents fail to discipline them? Want to arrest the parents for causing a nuisance? Didn't think so
Bad Bob- They will never outlaw cigarettes, they're too important as far as tax revenue is concerned
Posted by: Jeff on February 1, 2005 08:50 AMSorry, I was referring to smokers who light up wherever they want, regardless of other people around them. For example, smokers in cars at stop lights with their windows down, blowing smoke at other people trapped by traffic;
smoking in public parks especially around children; smoking on public sidewalks; smokers blocking access to public buildings by smoking in front of the entrance because they can't smoke inside the building; smoking at sporting events; smoking at places of employment; and smoking in places that are clearly marked "no smoking," just to name some places.
The pro public smoking argument is based on emotion and addiction---there is no logic in making other people breathe your smoke just so you can feed your addiction. Every time a smoker lights up he/she forces others to breathe their smoke, and it is not always possible for the non-smoker to move away from the smoker. It would make more sense for the smoker to move away from the non-smoker.
I have no problem with people smoking behind closed doors/windows of a bar, or home, or car.
But the whole building must be then be considered a smokers building because if even one room has smoke in it the whole building is contaminated, as that smoke with permeate the entire building regardless or because of suction fans.
There, I said it.
Posted by: smokeless sam on February 1, 2005 09:03 AMThis isn't about the customers in the bar. You have a choice about where you eat and drink. If you don't like smoke, you can take your business elsewhere and let the marketplace handle the problem.
This is about the employees in the bar. You are welcome to argue that nobody is forcing them to work there, but quitting and going on welfare to feed your kids is not a really good option. Their choices are much more limited, and they have to spend much more time breathing in the smoke.
This is also not about the government imposing a ban. It's a citizen initiative. (For those that are unsure about the concept, go check out the thread about the legislator trying to get them banned.)
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 09:03 AMThere can be smoking bars- and the owners can apply for a pollution permit of sorts from the department of health and from the department of ecology- and people can go there and smoke their wee little lungs out.
And the general public can finally be liberated and enjoy going out without contracting heart disease, cancers, and stinking like rotting garbage until they shower and wash clothes.
I’m all for the right to bear arms and freedom of speech, but this whole smoking issue was not a huge health hazard in our forefather’s day and really is not protected by any constitution. This one’s got my vote – and you’ll find me with clipboard in hand accepting signatures for the Public to beg the State to ban it.
But I do agree that ludicrous amounts of perfumes are not pleasant and even obnoxious, though they do not cause any major health issues.
Posted by: manderson on February 1, 2005 09:33 AMWell, I guess we should be happy you didn't claim it was "for the children", but I'm sure that's coming too.
Look, barmaids are not clamoring for a ban on smoking, most smoke themselves and if you ask them about it they'll tell you they'd rather work in a smoking bar than a non-smoking bar because smokers are better tippers.
And besides, health Nazis are boring.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 1, 2005 10:38 AMFull disclosure: I am not a cigarette smoker, only an occassional cigar smoker. I own no tobacco stock. I am not employed by an industry that in any way benefits from smoking nor would be affected in the slightest by any ban.
I come down on the side of liberty and freedom. It is so stunningly simple, I just can't understand some of you (like Michelle who clearly is no conservative!) who insist on limiting my freedom just so you are never offended or bothered or might possibly - fleetingly - have to have some small amount of - horrors! - smoke enter your lungs. If you don't want to smell smoke in a private business, don't go into that business!!! It's called freedom, learn it, love it, live it!
One example I've not seen here is that of beauty salons. My wife and I used to own a salon and a significant percentage of our clientelle and all but one of our employees smoked. Everyone (except an occassional walk-in client) knew it was a smoking salon. Everyone dealt with it or took their business elsewhere or chose to work elsewhere.
Many women take hours to get their hair done. You can't in the middle of a hair process have the client get up, walk outside in the weather 25 feet or more from the entrance to have a cigarette, all the while their hair is getting ruined by being overprocessed or rained on. With many smokers, you can't expect them to sit for three or four hours without a smoke. Besides, they've come to the salon to relax and be pampered, not have it be a stress-filled ordeal.
Remember: nearly all salons are small businesses, so they can't afford separate facilities (which would be outlawed by this initiative anyway) with ventiliation systems and seperate entrances or outside facilities to protect the client from the weather while getting their smoke.
Let me do what I want with my business and let the market decide if they want me to succeed.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 1, 2005 10:50 AMBruce Kaye
South Sound Entertainment
Southentertainment at hotmail dot com
Yep. Thats it. The only defense of forcing someone to breath their carcinigen laden smoke is to argue it doesn't cause cancer as every health official in the US will agree to. "Its just like perfume."
On the other hand, I don't think any one has suggested that it is "more harmful than first hand" smoke which is a well documented killer.
Businesses are already banned from having asbestos dust in the restaurant or bar. Asbestos is a known carcinigen which causes cancer. Excluding this substance from the air where employees work I think is reasonable.
Asserting one has a "freedom" to laden the air with asbestos dust or cigarette smoke is not reasonable when balanced with employees health which everyone pays for to some extent in L&I insurance.
Plus, a great percentage people have to work food service in their lives when they are young so the "choice" about the matter is questionable. They should all have their lives cut short? The devasting effects are not known for years, but by then it is too late.
There are already a great many fire, food and air safety requirements for businesses. Cigarette smoke would have long been banned in public places due to its cancer causing elements had the tobacco industry not pushed for and received a special execption.
Here's an interesting site on the relation between the food service industry and tobacco interests tobacco interests.
Posted by: Erik on February 1, 2005 12:31 PMThanks Bruce. However, around 30 percent of the US has now implemented smoking bans and as well as many countries. Seven states now have smoking bans in public places.
The economic effect has already been studied by peer review studies:
The conclusions of all of the studies coming out of California, New York, Texas, and other states is that the ban has a beneficial or neutral effect on buisness and employment.
I hope you will review these and other studies.
The one in New York was the most comprehensive and all of the fears of loss of business despite the presence of tribal lands proved to be as baseless as the fears around year 2000.
Posted by: Erik on February 1, 2005 12:41 PMI don't have time to read through them all, but I have reason to disbelieve studies from many anti-smoking organizations as they have lost credibility with the lies and especially exagerations(sp?) they put out.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 1, 2005 12:48 PMIt's even worse for you in rainy Washington, because the high humidity makes the smoke cling to your clothing like glue.
Ban it!
Posted by: JZ Smith on February 1, 2005 12:50 PMHas not had time to read through all the posts,
Is not a cigarette smoker,
Is an occasional cigar smoker,
Does have allergies,
Understands ventilation systems within restaurants,
And hates (strong word) government intervention in what should be a market driven issue.
There exists, for new construction, the ability to design seating areas in a manner for ALL smoke (and related particulate) to rise vertically without being even noticed by adjacent tables. Also, air handling systems can be installed to further clean the air taking odors from patrons clothing, etc. out of the air stream. The idea of having a smoker's area or lounge therefore is not to be compared to "since sex is legal do we allow people to have sex on the tables". Have you ever checked into a hotel room? Do you think there is a chance that someone "slept" in the bed previously? And as to the idea of the "peeing section" of the swimming pool....they are called "restrooms" and there is a created barrier between them and the pool. Barriers can be built between smoking and non-smoking areas.
The comparison for employees of dining establishments and airplanes doesn't really match up. We are dealing with self-contained vessel...but as to "rights"...why do I have to sit next to someone who has two gallons of aftershave or cheap perfume on?
At stake is the idea that a business owner "OWNS" their facility and should be able to set out to allow for legal activities within. If there is a demonstrated health risk then give them the option of mitigating the risk not just ripping their rights out of their hands.
Posted by: Len Bundy on February 1, 2005 12:52 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on February 1, 2005 12:56 PM
Here's the EPA material on the dangers of second hand smoke put out by our president's EPA
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
Bush is even on a poster about the dangers of second hand smoke. (on another location on the EPA site)
Interestingly, Texas already has four cities with smoking bans.
Posted by: Erik on February 1, 2005 12:59 PMYes. California had that concern as well as they have many gambling venues on tribal land. However, on the overall effect, it didn't make a difference.
Likewise, doom and gloom was predicted by the tobacco forces in New York city originally and then in New York State. All for nothing.
Speaking of Pierce County, many businesses saw such an increase in business with the smoking ban implemented that they never went back to smoking. Perhaps this is where the customers went.
Posted by: Erik on February 1, 2005 01:06 PM
another friend of mine who is exremely sensitive to chemical fragrances (which is pretty much all perfumes used today) was at the dentist when a lady with perfume came in and my friend started to pass out and they thought they might have to call an ambulance for her, before they asked the perfume woman to change her clothes into something temporary to staunch the stench.
AND HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE FOR ALL YOU GUYS: Last year Rush on his show read an article from a New Yrok newspaper about the National Smell and Taste Institute (Chicago or New York, as I recall) that discovered through their studies that MENS COLOGNE WAS ONE OF THE TOP 3 TURNOFFS FOR WOMEN. Think about that. I would guess guys wear it to atract women. But it does precisely the opposite. So take note, and tell your male friends and relatives. Esp the ones who want to get dates!
Posted by: Michele S on February 1, 2005 01:15 PMSo, you've never had a job that you couldn't reasonably afford to quit? (And no, it isn't "for the children." Children do not patronize bars, and I simply do not take my child to restaurants where I can smell smoke.)
What I am somewhat surprised at is that on this rather conservative blog, most of the "pro-ban" people are arguing from a customer's point of view, while your friendly token liberal is coming from the "safe and comfortable workplace" point of view.
Many men working in the old cedar shake mills argued against workplace safety changes, fearing that they would lose jobs and income. You are welcome to argue that we should have simply left them alone, despite the number of lost fingers, limbs, etc... After all, it was their choice to work there, wasn't it?
If it weren't for the bar employees health and their right to a safe workplace, I'd be in favor of letting the marketplace handle this. It would also not bother me in the least to simply set very high standards for air quality, much like we do in other businesses that deal with fumes and toxic gasses, and then let businesses that wish to install sufficient ventilation do so.
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on February 1, 2005 02:13 PMIn the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
While God is marching on.
Catchy tune, isn't it? Maybe a bit strong for this little issue, but we do lose our freedoms a piece at a time.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 1, 2005 02:23 PMIt's this kind of hyperbole that the anti-smoking zealots use that damages their credibility. Equating losing an arm under unsafe working conditions to inhaling second-hand smoke (when most employees are already smokers)?
Puhlease!
And yes, they can go work somewhere else. It's called freedom.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 1, 2005 02:26 PMnothing's perfectly safe
there are plenty of non-smoking establishments to work at
the vast majority of employees are against it
this argument, like the rest of the pro-ban arguments, is ass.
Posted by: err head on February 1, 2005 02:42 PMYes. Businesses should have the "freedom" to be able run a (construction) business where the employees who work for them do so without safety glasses, respirators, or steel toed boots.
If they don't want to get injured, they they should just work someplace else. Right?
Saftey harnesses for roof installers are expensive and slow down the work. Businesses should have the right to not provide this equipment if they choose. The workers could then weigh the risk v benefit and can go somewhere else if they like.
Right. If a few fall off the roofs or get cancer, it was their fault.
Why should carcinigen laden smoke be treated any different than any other airborne workplace hazard? Other than it has been allowed in the past, I don't see a difference that makes a difference.
Posted by: Erik on February 1, 2005 03:10 PMIt spells the doom of legal indoor smoking. And perhaps worse to come...
I have seen Iguana and some others on this thread explaining what this leads to: Prohibition. Granted, nothing in the initiative as written says I can’t be a smoker, but plenty in it tells me the government (through the will of the majority) will control activity by businesses which is legal right this moment.
Go back to the arguments for prohibition last century. They are the same as the ones from Jeff B, Erik and others:
“For the children”, “My health and yours”, “Your right to (drink/smoke) stops when my nose enters” and other lyrically written nonsense.
I hope that it does lead people to quit. It's a nasty and expensive addiction funding plenty of government boondoggles similar to the soon to be created 'smoking ban gestapo' who will need to be hired by the State to make sure your business is in compliance...
I pledge to never attempt to stop you from eating a "fattening hanburger" or "french fries."
However, I reserve the right to refuse your efforts to stuff the same hamburger down another's throat. Let me and others eat our own Big Mac at a time of our choosing, if at all.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.
Smoking is not covered in any freedom references in the Constitution - smoking was not known to be such a fatal habit way back when - and in fact I believe the Constitution more protects the rights of those who want to stay healthy than those who want to pollute the world with a selfish habit.
Smoking is pollution. Working in the environmental engineering world (yes, and a Republican supporter too -go figure)I can tell you that the toxins given off by cigarettes are equal to toxins that, in larger amounts, are regulated in commerical industry - yet people puff these killing sticks daily and blow the poison in my face (in an attempt to share their bad health and early death).
It's a curse being scientifically educated because you actually know what deadly chemicals are, why they're deadly, and you can't really justify scientific fact.
If we cannot ban smoking in public, then we need to lift bans on asbestos, PCBs, and airborne toxins as well.
I liked Stefan's camparison of a smoking section to a peeing section in a pool - the pee would of course dissipate as it filters into the water and away from the source, but would you still want to accidentally swallow the pee water And no matter what you do, that pee is in that water and on you and in you if you ingest it.
In fact, I'd prefer a peewater over toxic cigarette smoke- the long-term health issues are much more favorable with peewater.
Posted by: M on February 1, 2005 09:11 PMA business owner cannot choose to refuse to serve black people, or Jews, or women. A business owner cannot allow unsafe or unhealthy working conditions to exist -- conditions, that is, that they can do something about -- as long as they warn prospective employees that the conditions exist.
Again, some people may disagree with that. I have a Libertarian friend, for example, who feels that a business owner should be permitted to refuse service to blacks, or Jews, or women, or any other group of people.
But I think most people agree that a business owner should not have an unrestricted right to run their business however they choose.
So the question then becomes: what are reasonable restrictions on business owners? For example we don't allow business owners to ban blacks from restaurants, but we do allow them to ban people who aren't wearing shoes, or shirts. I would not presume to know what kinds of safety and health regulations are imposed upon businesses but I'm sure that even existing ones are viewed by some business owners as onerous.
Smoking bans are not being done for the sake of customers. They're being done for the sake of employees. It's a workplace health issue. When Ireland was contemplating its ban, which went into effect last year, I had read that the main supporter of the ban was the Pub & Restaurant Worker's Union. So, is banning smoking a reasonable restriction on the right of business owners? I feel it is, but also realize that others are going to differ and feel it's unreasonable.
Posted by: Jim on February 1, 2005 10:38 PMMicajah,
Are you kidding? You are quoting from a science fiction writer!
Ok. Here's my quote to counter yours:
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-Dean Martin
The sources I linked included the EPA which has had a Bush appointee running it for over 4 years. Bush is even on a poster on the EPA site warning about the dangers of second hand smoke.
Do you have any surgeon generals, current or former who agree with you, republican or democrat? No of course not. I can point to dozens of peer reviewed studies showing the dangers of second hand smoke.
This is also the position of the Bush adminstration and every state in the US.
Am I supposed to counter your Crichton quote from from Steven King. Remember in Crichton's book "Prey" when the nano robots attacked and formed their own intelligence with their micro cameras and attacked humans. That was a story in a book. It never happened.
Have you even reviewed the World Health Organization before making your post?
If you had, you would have had the ability to read their position which is that smoking is certainly a danger:
Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. It is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide (about 5 million deaths each year). If current smoking patterns continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020. Half the people that smoke today -that is about 650 million people- will eventually be killed by tobacco.
Comon. You made the Crichton quote just to see if anyone was watching this posting.
I can tell you that the toxins given off by cigarettes are equal to toxins that, in larger amounts, are regulated in commerical industry
Yes. Once the emotionalism is taking out of the issue, tobacco smoke should be viewed as any other carcinogen.
Asserting one has a right to fill the air with carcinogens in an enclosed public space certainly seems irrational in that context.
I keep thinking of the analogy of believing one has a right to walk into an eating establishment and start spraying asbestos dust around the room and announce to everyone they are exercising their "freedom."
Posted by: Erik on February 1, 2005 10:39 PMBan all public smoking. Ban it, ban it, ban it!
Your children with thank you later.
End of discussion.
Posted by: ex-smoker joe on February 1, 2005 11:08 PMIn fact, order a 1-pounder and I'll go beat up on the liberals who want to institute a 'fat tax' on you. Just don't blow your cig smoke all over me while you're munching.
Posted by: Michele S on February 1, 2005 11:13 PMMe too. I also have been known to enjoy trans-fat. Yummy. But bad for you. Oh well.
I tried the high protein thing for awhile but missed the bread and chips. Oh well. I can't promise I won't backslide again with a Big Mac here and there. However, I can promise I won't try to shove one down your throat.
No one is perfect. I do not understand the hate and prejudice against smokers.
Nah. None here. "Some of my best friends are smokers" as they say. Its true and likely of many of the people posting on this blog as well.
And if you don't want to work for a business that allows it, find another job.
Yes, but we have long ago required businesses to provide a reasonably safe working place for employees. We require harnesses on roofs for them and respirators for them when they work with chemicals. We require employers to provide them safety goggles when they work with a substance that might blind them.
Thus, I don't see that the request of employers to have the "right" to endanger their employees and bypass all health and safety laws as persuasive.
"But it's my choice whether to provide a respirator to an employee or not when they work with asbestos, they can leave and find another job if they like"
Nah. I don't buy it.
Asbestos causes cancer. Preventable injuries also raise L&I and health care rates. Its more economically efficient to prevent injuries with simple steps than pay for them years later when they file endless L&I claims.
You've cited the EPA web site in second-hand smoke and health several times but apparently haven't read what they say, so here's a quote from your link:
Critics of the EPA report argue that by normal statistical standards, none of the 11 U.S. studies included in the EPA report showed a statistically significant increase in the simple overall risk measure, and that EPA should therefore have been unable to conclude that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers...the 11 U.S. studies are not, by themselves, conclusive...
Erik, the time has come for you to stop lying and start learning.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 2, 2005 02:06 AMSoooooo, if the EPA is so so wrong, why are my lungs toasted?
Thanks Bennett for the real life example.
Here's the portion of the EPA site I was referring to which is the position of the federal government:
How Big a Lung Cancer Risk for Adults?
The evidence is clear and consistent: secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer in adults who don't smoke. EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk.
Even though the lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking, unlike a smoker who chooses to smoke, the nonsmoker's risk is often involuntary. In addition, exposure to secondhand smoke varies tremendously among exposed individuals. For those who must live or work in close proximity to one or more smokers, the risk would certainly be greater than for those less exposed.
EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among nonsmokers in the U.S.; of these, the estimate is 800 from exposure to secondhand smoke at home and 2,200 from exposure in work or social situations.
The information for the EPA speaks for itself.
Each state in the US that I have checked has a similar message as well as the World Health Organization.
Posted by: Erik on February 2, 2005 09:54 AMExactly. House. Car. Not exactly public places, are they? With this proposed law in place, you'd still have been around your mom's smoke.
Posted by: TB on February 2, 2005 10:07 AMFirst of all, I sure hope that all of you tobacco smokers who see the banning of tobacco smoking in public places as "gestapo" tactics are opposed to the even greater gestapo tactic of the government not just banning the burning leaf of choice of other people but criminalizing it.
Second, Keith reminds me of the people I really feel sorry for, children in homes of smokers. Workers can leave their jobs and go somewhere else (even though I feel they shouldn't have to do that based on an unhealthy workplace), but children can't. That being said, I certainly wouldn't support any attempt at banning smoking in anyone's home.
We need to show a little compassion here people. Everyone has their faults. No one is perfect. I do not understand the hate and prejudice against smokers. Just be nice.
Put a ban on all public places. Leave the individual business owners alone. If you don't like the private smoking establishments, don't go in. And if you don't want to work for a business that allows it, find another job.
Until the government makes smoking illegal, like spraying asbestos dust, there should be no ban on it in a private establishment.
There's no reason for the government to make smoking, per se, illegal. People should have the right to make foolish health choices as long as those foolish health choices don't affect others, like people who work in bars and restaurants. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult to understand.
You ask for compassion to be shown to smokers? Since when have smokers shown compassion to non-smokers, or to people who work in places where they smoke? How about some compassion by smokers towards people who work in bars and restaurants? If smokers were compassionate and thoughtful, they'd voluntary choose to not smoke around other people in businesses and then government would have no need for any smoking bans.
Smokers have had their way for an incredibly long time. Things are finally changing. The tide is turning against smokers inflicting their smoke on other people and it's not going to turn around and go back the other way. California's ban was enacted back in 1999. Ireland's ban was put into effect last year. Italy's this year. It will eventually happen in Washingon State; it's merely a matter of time.
Posted by: Jim on February 2, 2005 11:32 AMExactly. House. Car. Not exactly public places, are they? With this proposed law in place, you'd still have been around your mom's smoke.
So, your reason is...because we can't protect children against the thoughtlessness of parents who smoke, we shouldn't try to protect workers from customers who smoke?
I think it's terribly thoughtless for parents to smoke around children but I fail to see any viable way to prevent that. If a parent fed their child poison, the child had to go to a hospital, and the poisoning was discovered, the parents would likely be charged with child abuse. But parents are going to continue to be free to poison their children's lungs little by little, day by day. I think that's sad for the children who have no choice in the matter, but it's also something we have to accept. In addition, there are far worse forms of child abuse -- by smoking and non-smoking parents alike -- that society should focus on.
Posted by: Jim on February 2, 2005 11:42 AMHowever, the smoking ban passed, and virtually NONE of the negative economic effects cited then and now came to be. I saw it as a 'liberty issue' then, as many do now. What I didn't realize, however, until the ban was in place and I could go to restaurants and bars that had no smoke, was how much smoking and smokers interfered in MY right to NOT smoke. By not smoking, I did not interfere in the rights of smokers, yet by smoking, smokers were interfering in my right NOT to smoke.
Until you have experienced a ban on smoking you cannot fully understand how much smoking impacts the non-smoker.
Lastly, many places here in California are banning smoking in outdoor areas. Many beaches don't allow smoking, and you cannot smoke inside an outdoor stadium. I can't wait until smoking is banned in cars, so that I don't have to smell the smoke from the car ahead of me, nor have to dodge the still-lit cigarette butt dropped from that same car.
Posted by: JZ Smith on February 2, 2005 12:02 PMThis is in reply to your comment, posted at February 1, 2005 10:39 PM.
First, this is my answer to your question (“Micajah, are you kidding?”): No.
Both Michael Crichton and the “James Michelin Distinguished Visitors Lecture Program” at Caltech deserve more respect than you seem willing to give them.
Rather than belittle the words of Crichton by claiming that he is merely a science fiction writer, you need to offer evidence that what he said in the lecture isn’t true.
Crichton is a graduate of the medical school at Harvard University:
http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography.html
“After graduating from the Harvard Medical School, Michael Crichton embarked on a career as a writer and filmmaker. Called "the father of the techno-thriller," his novels include....”
Caltech is a distinguished university that invites distinguished people to give the annual Michelin Lecture as a way to foster interaction between the sciences and the arts:
http://giving.caltech.edu/GP/Tech_Spring01.pdf
“Cashin invested her experimental spirit at Caltech as well, establishing the highly successful James Michelin Distinguished Visitors Program (the Michelin Lectures) in 1991. The lectures grew out of her desire to foster interaction between the sciences and the arts. Again wishing to honor her uncle, she donated oil royalties she had inherited from him to establish a program that would bring to campus individuals who bridged the gap between the two interrelated worlds. The result has been a series of public lectures on campus from notable leaders in their fields....”
A Harvard medical school graduate who has become a preeminent “techno-thriller” writer seems to fit exactly within the goals set by the woman who endowed that lecture series.
As for the accuracy of Crichton’s statements in the lecture, note that he asserted that the EPA’s junk-science based decision was rejected by a federal district court.
He also asserted that the lesson the EPA learned is that “cheating is the way to succeed.”
Here’s the outcome of the litigation:
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html
"Legal Challenge to EPA’s 1993 Secondhand Smoke Risk Assessment Dismissed
On March 23, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina formally dismissed the tobacco industry’s lawsuit challenging EPA’s landmark 1993 risk assessment on the respiratory health effects of secondhand smoke. The dismissal followed a December ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that the EPA risk assessment was a statutorily authorized scientific report and was not subject to judicial review."
Unable to prevail on the merits, the EPA succeeded in persuading the appellate court to hold that the decision made by the EPA isn’t subject to judicial review.
Crichton was apparently aware of the December 2002 appellate court decision when he gave the lecture at Caltech in January 2003. His statement that the EPA learned that “cheating is the way to succeed” fits the circumstances quite well: The EPA had succeeded despite relying on fraudulent “science,” and there was nothing anyone could do in the courts to reverse the decision of the EPA.
You quoted a statement by the World Health Organization which said nothing at all about “secondhand smoke.” Instead, it was a statement about the effects of smoking on the people who smoke tobacco.
Crichton asserted:
“Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge.”
If you find anything relevant which rebuts Crichton’s statement about the seven-country WHO study’s findings, please come forward with it.
I think that's a fair concern.
However, that's where the difference between one's freedom to engage in a harmful activity lies and the act of involuntarily exposing others to it.
One can draw a line between what is legal for a person to do and what is legal for a person to expose others to.
One can eat bad food, trans-fat, drink to excess, sniff paint fumes and smoke as much they want if it only affects them. It is a quite a different matter to suggest one should be able to force others to be injest smoke and inhale fumes.
As far as the workplace goes, I don't think it is reasonable for a business owner to suggest that they have a right to expose their employees to air borne carcinogenic toxins and not provide a respirator. Workplace safety laws have been in effect in every state for approximately the last 80 years.
The carcinagens in cigarette smoke are many of the same which require breathing protection in an industrial setting. It shouldn't matter from the source they are produced from, only their toxicity and propensity to do harm, and in this case cause cancer.
"What good are words, when there´s no beat to them."
-Steven King
Please see my above links to WHO, the EPA and other sites. I have also included some extended quotes from the EPA site and other sources. George Bush is also on the EPA site anti-smoking poster.
You may also want to review the position of the current and all prior surgeon generals on the matter who have the same position as to the dangers of second hand smoke.
Every state in the US that I have checked also has nearly the same information about the dangers of second hand smoke but in slightly different format.
Posted by: Erik on February 2, 2005 02:03 PMFor the record, I am a Republican, voted for GWB twice, against Clinton twice, for GHWB twice,for Reagan twice, etc., etc. I support the war, and generally am conservative to libertarian in virtually all issues. I just happen to view the banning of smoking as a good thing, and not a slippery slope down which we will slide into a socialist dictatorship.
Posted by: JZ Smith on February 2, 2005 04:24 PMOut of these 200+ posts, nobody seems to be looking at the obvious alternative. Please note - I am not a smoker, and really don't like the smell.
Why not mandate clean-air standards for the businesses, just as we do for other workplace toxins?
Businesses could then decide whether it would be better for them to install sufficient filtered ventilation to meet the standard or ban smoking from their establishment.
Side note - As California's smoking ban was starting, a tobacconist wanted to have a "smoking room." The filtration system proposed was guaranteed to ensure that the air in the smoking room would be cleaner than the outside air even when the room was being used to capacity by cigar smokers, and filter the outgoing air to remove all measurable traces of cigar smoke. While that seemed like a pretty reasonable compromise to me, the request was denied.
Or, we could just put the cocktail waitresses in gas masks. ;-)
Posted by: John Barelli on February 2, 2005 04:40 PMIt puzzled me to see that you didn't do as I had done -- copy and paste what you think are the relevant excerpts from the WHO-IARC 1998 seven-nation study of the effects of "environmental tobacco smoke."
So, to satisfy my curiosity, I decided to try doing your work for you.
Then, I found that Crichton was right and you are (of course) wrong.
The study itself seems never to have been published by WHO-IARC. At least, if it has, it's nowhere that Google can find; and it's nowhere on the WHO web site.
The first news reports about it came out in early March 1998 -- stating that this long-term seven-nation study had found no causal relationship between "environmental tobacco smoke" (or "secondhand smoke" as it's often called now) and detrimental health effects. The reports claimed that WHO and IARC were withholding the study from publication, because the findings didn't support their anti-tobacco campaign.
WHO-IARC, naturally, denied that they were trying to suppress the study report.
They also claimed that the news reports erroneously stated the findings.
Maybe those news reports incorrectly stated the findings (and maybe WHO-IARC finally did publish the report before burying it somewhere), but it is obvious that Michael Crichton correctly described its findings.
Crichton said:
“Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge.”
The WHO said in their press release on March 9, 1998:
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
"The study in question is a case-control study on the effects of ETS on lung cancer risk in European populations, which has been carried out over the last seven years by 12 research centres in 7 European countries under the leadership of WHO's cancer research branch -- the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
"The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.
"The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure." [Emphasis added.]
I added the emphasis in that last paragraph for two reasons:
(1) I didn't want you to miss the "estimated" part, which caught my eye before I got to the "However" part. I wondered why they bothered to qualify the statement of the risk with the word "estimated."
(2) I certainly didn't want you to miss the part that says there is no statistically significant relationship between health effects and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. That means the study found no "association" (Crichton's word) between them which could be attributed to a causal relationship rather than mere chance.
In the future, I'll wait for you to do me the courtesy of providing evidence to support what you believe. (Try to find something that isn't being pushed by people who are clearly biased against tobacco smoking. And, unless you would like to acknowledge that "W" is a genius, don't bother pointing to his picture or anything else about him and this issue. I'm looking for a scientific basis for your beliefs, not a juvenile "but HE said" statement.)
Posted by: Micajah on February 2, 2005 04:45 PMThis is what you call a "consistent finding".
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 2, 2005 04:55 PMI didn't want to repost, but I will a bit.
Here's from "Nathan" from above:
The National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program's 9th issue of the Report on Carcinogens listed ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) as a "known" human carcinogen, which indicates that there is a cause and effect relationship between exposure and human cancer incidence.
From the EPA site:
The evidence is clear and consistent: secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer in adults who don't smoke. EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk.
Even though the lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking, unlike a smoker who chooses to smoke, the nonsmoker's risk is often involuntary. In addition, exposure to secondhand smoke varies tremendously among exposed individuals. For those who must live or work in close proximity to one or more smokers, the risk would certainly be greater than for those less exposed.
EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among nonsmokers in the U.S.; of these, the estimate is 800 from exposure to secondhand smoke at home and 2,200 from exposure in work or social situations.
The information from the EPA speaks for itself.
This is the settled position of the federal government and of every surgeon general and every state government.
Unless Crichton produces a peer reviewed scientific study to the contrary, his opinion is as meaningless as Mike Tyson speculating on relativity.
Posted by: Erik on February 2, 2005 05:22 PM"However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." - WHO
No statistically significant risk has ever been found.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 2, 2005 06:01 PMRead the lecture given by Crichton. Perhaps you will learn the difference between basing your arguments on scientific facts and arguing that a consensus exists in support of your beliefs.
You are simply parroting the words of people who have no scientifically proven basis for their strongly held beliefs -- just as Crichton describes in that lecture.
Posted by: Micajah on February 2, 2005 06:26 PMOne other thing: Crichton doesn't need to find a peer-reviewed scientific study or report to the contrary -- every such study has already proven the negative. That's what it means when they say they couldn't find a statistically significant relationship. The data as it exists could be merely the result of chance, not cause and effect.
You are the one who is arguing for a law based on what you claim is scientific fact. So, you are the one who has the burden of finding a peer-reviewed published study which finds a statistically significant relationship.
There may never be a scientifically proven cause and effect relationship, but you at least need to get past the threshold by finding a statistically significant relationship -- which would tend to indicate that there is a causal relationship. (It wouldn't prove it any more than a statistically significant relationship between the crowing of roosters and the rising of the sun proves the rooster's crow causes the sun to rise. But, it would at least be a start.)
Posted by: Micajah on February 2, 2005 06:45 PMI was trying to stay away from this thread, but something persistent drew me back. I just read Dr. Crichton's speech, and I was shocked (SHOCKED!), to find that there is untruth in the "realm of scientific fact."
Okay, not really. As you have stated previously (paraphrased), junk science has the microphone to the world. Just go to 'Yahoo! News' in their "science" section and you will be bombarded with "facts" from the MSM regarding the 'Global Warming' phenomena.
As always, you do great work on the topic du jour, or, in this case, times three...
Posted by: smegma on February 2, 2005 07:07 PMIronically I had heard that Crichton recently published a book about global warming and went looking for it -- and to find out more about him -- when I came across that lecture at Caltech. Once I saw what he said about the fraudulent science behind the claims about "secondhand smoke", I thought it was interesting enough to post here.
I wonder if his latest book is worth reading. From what I've seen, it may require the reader to work hard to suspend disbelief -- if it really does spin a conspiracy yarn regarding the zealots pushing the global warming stuff.
Who knows -- it might be worth checking it out of the library and reading the first few pages. It's been a long while since I read fiction. Not counting comments posted by some people on blogs, of course. ;-)
Posted by: Micajah on February 2, 2005 07:35 PMTake your tyranny and ... well you know.
What part of private restaurant/bar/etc. do you fools not understand? Oh, that is right you like the idea of the government running every aspect of your life. Idiots!!!!
By the way bozo - I run on public runs (actually public roads) not private roads (and I run on public sidealks). You drive by - the particulates from your exhaust among other pollutants shorten my life, give me cancer, etc. Your pollution does not respect boundaries. I am not causing any pollution through my respiration as the CO2 I am putting out when I exhale is good for plants, but you are poisoning me and that poison is much more pervasive than some cigarette smoke in a bar and it is caused by you in a public place as opposed to a private establishment. So I hope you are looking forward to my Initiative banning the use of the internal combustion engine in the State of Washington.
You are such a fool.
Here is something else that doesn't respect boundaries - out of control government - it will eat you too - dufus.
Posted by: Jericho on February 2, 2005 09:14 PMps. Notice the continued use of the term public in the above posts to describe private places. Goebels would be proud.
Posted by: Jericho on February 2, 2005 09:25 PMYou can stay with the science fiction writers for your source for information if you wish, I will stick with scientists, peer reviewed journals, and experts in the field.
Posted by: Erik on February 2, 2005 09:41 PMOnce again, let's look at what Erik's sources actually say:
"...none of the 11 U.S. studies included in the EPA report showed a statistically significant increase in the simple overall risk measure..." - EPA
"However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." - WHO
No statistically significant risk has ever been found - that's not ad hominem, it's science.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 3, 2005 02:30 AMJohn, I'd have no problem with that. The issue for me is a healthy environment for employees, not the banning of smoking per se.
In Norway and Ireland, the indoor smoking bans don't allow for the for the creation of a room for smokers but Italy's ban, which went into effect in early January, does. Italy bans smoking in indoor spaces unless they have a separate area with continuous floor-to-ceiling walls and a ventilation system.
___________________________________________________________________
What I didn't realize, however, until the ban was in place and I could go to restaurants and bars that had no smoke, was how much smoking and smokers interfered in MY right to NOT smoke. By not smoking, I did not interfere in the rights of smokers, yet by smoking, smokers were interfering in my right NOT to smoke.
JZ, you're right in that when smoking is allowed non-smokers don't interfere with the rights of smokers to smoke, but smokers interfere with the right of non-smokers to not smoke. But when smoking is banned, then smokers would argue that non-smokers are infringing on their right to smoke.
I'd rather see direct democracy, via an initiative like we're hopefully going to have in Washington this fall, result in an indoor smoking ban than representative democracy, via a state legislature, result in a smoking ban. That way, any "fascist" anti-smoking law is clearly being imposed by the will of the people.
___________________________________________________________________
Keith, peculiar assumption you make. You seem to assume a person has to engage in an activity to be in favor of it being legal. I don't smoke any kind of dried leaf, tobacco or marijuana, but I feel both should be legal for personal use outdoors or in the privacy of one's home. Any tobacco smoker (or non-tobacco smoker) who opposes an indoor smoking ban yet supports a complete ban on marijuana smoking is about as hypocritical as one can get.
Posted by: Jim on February 3, 2005 11:15 PMThe majority trambles the rights of minorities all the time, Jim; that's one of the reasons the Founders of our nation opted for a representative system of government instead of direct democracy.
Nearly half of Americans don't even believe in evolution today; do you really want these morons making laws?
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 4, 2005 02:29 AMI realize that, Richard, but it's hardly as if our political representatives typically take positions contrary to the will of the people. They generally need to reflect the will of the people if they want to get re-elected.
I also realize that trampling on rights of the minority happens all the time. The rights of the minority of Americans who choose to smoke marijuana instead of (or in addition to) tobacco in currently being trampled on much more severely than right of tobacco smokers. There should be far greater outrage about that trampling but, curiously, there isn't.
Posted by: Jim on February 4, 2005 12:25 PMThere's at least as much outrage over drug laws as tobacco laws, if not more, but both are minority issues. In fact, the trend right now is toward fewer restrictions on marijuana and more on tobacco, and if present trends continue, pot will be legal and tobacco won't.
Wouldn't that be funny?
Posted by: Richard Bennett on February 4, 2005 01:18 PMSeattle Times, Friday, February 04, 2005 Novel on global warming gets some scientists burned up
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002170342_warming04.html
Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder, however, said the Harvard-trained author is bending scientific data and distorting research.
"Wrong, wrong, wrong," said Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University. "The best face I can put on this is that he doesn't know what he's doing. The worst is that he's intentionally deceiving people as he accuses environmentalists (of doing) in 'State of Fear.'"
Yeah, isn't it great? I just bought the book. So refreshing getting a unique perspective, as opposed to the trash 16 of 18 scientists so frequently come up with.
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
- Mark Twain
Privately owned facilities and businesses should be up to the business owner. I still have free choice to work or not work in the business and as a customer or client to do business with the busieness or not. I personally choose to not do business in a smokey environment. When it becomes not profitable for a business to allow smoking, the business will choose to ban smoking. The government does not have to play big brother and potect free thinking intelligent people from activities.
If the population is incapable of being free thinking and intelligent, then the effort and the money should be spent on the real problem, improving the quality of education.
Posted by: Dale Cummins on February 11, 2005 09:09 AM"If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go." -Mark Twain
"If you can't send money, send tobacco." -George Washington
It seems to me that you forget about other people's rights......The right to choose.. That means the right be be a business owner in Washington State. What would be wrong with posting a smoking bar and restaurant sign so the owners could choose for themselves? Seems fair to me as then the people could choose whether they would like to go into that smoke filled room or not..
There should never be a black and white area such as this because it is a step away from losing all our rights as free Americans....
Do you know that every air plane that takes off is like lighting up 13,000,000,000 cigarettes? Put that in your pipe and smoke it..
I think you and other glorified anti-smoking mongers should please go out and stop the real polluters of the world.. cigarettes are nothing much compared to the other nasty things out there.
Oh, by the way... I have asthma, which I have had since I was four years old, and cigarette smoke does not bother it, but a nice campfire does somewhat...No, I do not smoke, but I used to.. I stopped, not because of health reasons, but because of all the nasty people that had nothing else to do but give me dirty looks and of course, because I could not afford the price anymore.
I hope you have a nice day tomorrow, Jackie B.