Posted on 07/03/2003 8:31:38 AM PDT by Drew68
July 3, 2003
Here we are, folks, standing on the wrong side of history. The surprise is that it's not more crowded.
In the same week that Kraft Foods admits that it's wrong to push Oscar Mayer wieners on unsuspecting kids - just, please, don't tell me they're proposing a ban on Oreos - the Denver City Council couldn't find its way to admitting that it's wrong to allow people to blow cigarette smoke in kids' faces at restaurants.
But if the city insists on bucking the national anti- smoking movement, you would hope there is at least some larger principle involved.
I mean, what if somebody had stood up bravely and said that Denver wasn't bowing to the politically correct notion that it's somehow wrong to force an obnoxious habit onto innocent bystanders? Instead, the only person who stood up was City Council President Cathy Reynolds, and that was to run out of the room to sneak a smoke. The hero of the night was Happy Haynes, who left the hospital to argue for the ban. As the old sports saying goes, she shoulda stood in bed.
There are apparently arguments to be made against the smoking bans that are sweeping the country - arguments that don't include the economic well-being of bar owners. Some of these arguments might even be worth hearing.
But the Denver City Council didn't simply vote down the smoking restrictions, which didn't include bars in the end. It also voted down a public hearing on the smoking restrictions. It's a small irony, I suppose, that the debate on whether the council had enough time to hold a hearing took nearly as long as a hearing itself would have taken.
If you want to make an argument against smoking bans in restaurants, you could, for example, start by railing against the latest peculiar strain of American puritanism. Who could have guessed 10 years ago that it would become officially legal to have gay sex, but not necessarily to light up afterwards? Or try this: In some cities in Colorado, you can carry a loaded gun into a bar, but not a lighted cigarette.
You can also point to studies - but not if they're financed by Philip Morris - that challenge the science on secondhand smoke. A tip: Just don't try it on someone who has asthma.
You can note with irony, which is always the best way, that the anti-smoking protesters who stood outside the other night were breathing in fumes from passing city buses while denouncing the effects of breathing in fumes from passing cigarette smokers.
You can wonder aloud where the limits are on enforcing healthy habits. According to a story in The Los Angeles Times, a group of lawyers met in Boston last week to discuss strategies for attacking the fast-food industry for its super-sized contributions to obesity.
Kraft may be doing the right thing by reducing the serving size of its snack foods - apparently, there is a limit to how many Cheese Nips a human should consume - but you understand the motivation. It's not because Kraft is suddenly feeling guilty about passing off Velveeta as a legitimate member of the cheese family, but because of the lawsuits to come. For me, if you choose to eat Velveeta, you deserve whatever happens to you.
For the City Council, there was only one argument. There was no guiding principle, if you don't count the interest that comes with putting the sales-tax receipts in the bank.
The council's refusal to restrict smoking in restaurants wasn't a stand for libertarianism, or rugged individualism, or a tribute to the
poignant memory of the Marlboro Man's fouling of a perfect Western sky or even a paean to the now all-too-familiar vision of huddled tobacco junkies feeding their jones outside office building doors.
This wasn't even a statement on yellowed teeth. It was just the economy. And when the economy improves and the smoke clears, some future council will see its way to an anti- smoking law, probably tougher than the compromise bill that was voted down Monday night. And here I thought all you had to do to fix the economy was offer a tax cut.
You would think this argument would hinge almost entirely on a determination of the actual danger of secondhand smoke. Since the council chose not to hear any arguments either way, you have to assume it accepts the view of the federal government that the stuff can kill you.
If that's the case, it means this City Council, which is losing 10 of its 13 members, decided in one of its final decisions that it could live with you taking that risk.
And if you think you shouldn't have to - how's this for a farewell, or is it a fare-theewell? - you can take it up with the next City Council.
Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at (303) 892-5428 or e-mail him at littwinm@RockyMountainNews.com.
What will happen next is that a smoking ban (one that does not compromise between restaurants and bars) will find it's way onto the November ballot --where it will almost certainly pass (thanks to the tyranny of the majority).
So light em up in Denver while you can. This defeat was merely a reprieve from what will eventually come to pass.
And everyone here screams, but we are a democracy!!!! completely ignorant of the fact that the framers designed our system of government *specifically* to prevent the type of "mob-rule" that true democracies bring about.
Stated best, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner.
The only arguments not worth hearing are those in favor of the ban because they do not even resemble reality.
But those are generally the only arguments that ever get an airing.
you have to assume it accepts the view of the federal government that the stuff can kill you.
I did not know this was the view of the federal govt.
I wonder where that is written that hasn't been disputed by the same federal govt, although maybe by a different branch or agency?
Yes it was. Littwin is usually more outspoken in his open support for liberalism. He tried to be a bit sly in this piece.
I don't understand this logic. The people know that smokers are allowed to smoke in the eatery. How are they innocent. If they know smoking is allowed inside... Ahhh... Why bother?
Maybe. But ...
“That being said, I would support a regional smoking ban proposal that would be put before the voters.
“In the meantime, restaurants should be encouraged to invest in ventilation systems that improve air quality to the same standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency for outdoor air. Denver Health must agree to such standards and how they would be measured. Restaurants that did not meet these standards could be required to post ‘Hazardous to Your Health’ warnings in their place of business.”
Hickenlooper supports a regional ban because he knows a local ban will kill Denver restaurants. Given his druthers, he'd probably prefer no ban whatsoever but that isn't in the cards.
As far as ventalation is concerned, restaurants all over Denver have installed several thousand dollar "smoke-eaters" which pull virtually all the smoke up to the ceilings where it is vented out.
In fact, I believe it is the law in Denver.
Restaurant owners were forced to open their wallets and install these very expensive devises under the ruse that if they did, they would be left alone by the anti-smoking crowd.
Fools!
Now that they have installed these smoke-eaters --many of which the restaurant owners are still making payments on, the health-nazis are screaming, "Not good enough!"
Your support for the tyranny of the majority is heartwarming.
Your support for depriving property owners of their rights more than makes up for it though.
Your post FALSELY implies words to me that I did not say. Those words were quotes from the mayor as I clearly indicated in my post and you did NOT in yours.
I apologize. I thought you were expostulating from your own thoughts.
Most of the time when quoting from an article the quote is italicized, or in some form shows that it came from the article.
Now for the 64 dollar question.
WOULD you support what the new mayor outlines?
Perhaps my use of quotes would be a clue.
Not that hard to miss.
If you had said something like,
Maybe, but - according to the new mayor, "yada yada yada"
It would have made it a lot clearer.
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.