Posted on 03/27/2016 7:12:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
Fans do not attend Major League Baseball games to enhance their physical health. Among their customary activities are eating hot dogs, drinking beer or sugary soda, sitting idly for hours on end and stressing terribly about inconsequential events on the field of play.
But this season, those at Wrigley Field and U.S. Cellular Field will have to forgo one vice. Chicago recently became the fourth city to outlaw smokeless tobacco in sports stadiums (followed shortly by New York).
The law owes much to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, whose president, Matthew Myers, says, "Our national pastime should be about promoting a healthy and active lifestyle, not a deadly and addictive product."
But don't worry, MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch. He's not talking about your wares. Alcohol is one deadly and addictive product that will remain legal, welcome and profitable at professional sports venues. Some venues -- Miller Park, Busch Stadium, Coors Field -- are even named after brewing giants.
Alcohol is not just for fans, either. What do players do in the locker room after winning a title? They spray and drink enough Champagne to float a battleship.
Not everyone is happy about the new law. Cubs pitcher John Lackey, who doesn't use smokeless tobacco, took the position that "grown men should have their own choice." Catcher Miguel Montero lamented, "It's going to be tough to quit cold turkey."
But the most cogent objection came from Cubs manager Joe Maddon, evincing an affinity for libertarian principles. "I'm into personal freedoms," he said. "I'm not into over-legislating the human race." He even offered a modest counterproposal: "Educate the masses and let everybody make their own decision."
Illinois already forbids smoking in stadiums, on the grounds that watching the White Sox attempt to catch and throw the ball -- they were the worst defensive team in baseball last season -- is miserable enough without having to peer through someone else's cigarette fumes. Not only that but secondhand smoke carries health risks to innocent bystanders, including death from cancer.
But secondhand spit is a danger only to your shoes, not your lungs. The person in front of you could be getting a nicotine fix without your ever being aware of it, much less injured by it. The difference between banning cigarettes and banning snuff is the difference between minding your business and butting into everyone else's.
Using these products is less hazardous than sucking on paper cylinders stuffed with burning leaves, but it's not harmless. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smokeless tobacco causes cancer of the mouth, esophagus and pancreas, among other maladies.
The danger gained attention when two baseball legends who chewed tobacco, Tony Gwynn and Curt Schilling, contracted oral cancer (which in Gwynn's case was fatal). But it remains a legal commodity that adults are allowed to consume at their own risk, like booze and bratwurst.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids justifies its overbearing demand with the pretext that it's for the good of the children. "Players' use of smokeless tobacco sets a terrible example for millions of impressionable youth," it says. A complete ban in baseball is essential "to protect our kids."
Really? It's not as though our heroes are flaunting their addiction. Spectators at the ballpark or at home would have trouble detecting which players are chewing Red Man and which are chewing gum or sunflower seeds.
If a small percentage of high-school boys dip or chew -- almost no girls do -- it's not because they idolize Miguel Montero. Blaming ballplayers for adolescent use of smokeless tobacco is like blaming Taylor Swift for teenage heartbreak.
Players and owners have already taken steps to shield children. Tobacco in any form is banned in the minor leagues, with fines for players caught with it, even in their lockers.
Major league players are not allowed to use smokeless tobacco when signing autographs, giving interviews or doing events with fans, and they're forbidden to possess it on the field -- a change from the days when tins of snuff were a common back-pocket cargo. Strict discretion is the norm.
That should be enough. The existing arrangement in Major League Baseball accommodates the reasonable goal of not encouraging kids to use tobacco and the right of players and coaches (not to mention fans) to exercise their own preferences.
As addictive habits go, chewing tobacco is bad. But over-legislating the human race is worse.
A bit flawed?
Alcohol related deaths and societal problems are nothing short of a scourge and yet we celebrate it
This dip ban is pure nonsense
25 years of Chaw and dip, finally quit, very hard to do but it was getting too expensive and I developed some polyps in my mouth which gave me a scare but even after 20 years of no tobacco I still get a craving at times.
My husband chewed for 50 years and never had a problem. His grandfather chewed for less time than that and died of cancer of the jaw.
Ed
Next, they’ll be banning second hand spit.
Longhorn natural fine cut mimics Cope at one quarter the price
Red Seal plain is made by same folks as Cope and cost about a third of Cope
Cope unflavored in either fine or long cut is the gold standard but it’s expensive in Nashville area
4-5 bucks
Longhorn if you buy the tub is a dollar a can
Dip is very common in the white parts of middle TN except hipster east Nashville
I was just at super posh Rosemary beach Florida at local market and even they carry a decent array of dip
In the south, woods love their dip regardless of income
I used to chew long ago and dip a bit
My sons group in Williamson county TN mostly dip...some vape
And a few blacks dip too....cowboy blacks
And people especially women were thinner
And you could have decent sex in the backseat
Today you’d have to be 23rd degree yoga master in these cars
That’ll sure mess up aqualunging on date night
It is not true anywhere.
The "study" used by our worthless Government was actually a Meta Study. An analysis/compilation of several different studies. They cherry-picked the studies used to get the results they wanted and thus the results are totally useless.
There is no real scientific or statistical correlation between second hand smoke and cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.