Posted on 02/14/2005 5:26:50 AM PST by SheLion
HALLOCK, Minn. - On Dec. 18, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition at the Alerus Center. After listening to the panel members and researching both sides of the issues, and having lived in California when the smoking ban was instituted there, I strongly urge the Grand Forks City Council and other agencies to take no action on the issue at this time, except to research the facts on both sides.
Why? First, the health issue is seriously questionable. As the American Council on Science and Health has put it, "the role of environmental tobacco smoke in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial."
The term that comes to my mind is "comparative risk." That is, if you were to compare the risk of secondhand smoke to other risks found in homes and workplaces, you'd find little real difference, especially if those other risks were subject to the same scrutiny that secondhand smoke has endured.
Second, the economic issue is distorted, and our area cannot afford the risk that the same thing that happened in California will happen here. As someone who lived through California's non-smoking program, let me lend some insight as to its real effect.
The smoking ban in California was a failure. For one thing, it was accomplished through lies, exaggeration and bureaucratic gamesmanship. The lies included the health risks (for example, the statement that 50,000 people die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke) and false representations of health studies (check the World Health Organization and other groups on this).
The distortions included what the estimated economic impact would be on all workplaces. Minimal, the activists said. The reality proved different. The loss in productivity (from smokers having to leave the workplace to smoke) and jobs (from scores of restaurants and bars closing and other businesses moving) was substantial.
If you are not traveling, then bars and restaurants are a luxury. They're an activity on which customers choose to spend their discretionary dollars.
As the Bismarck Tribune pointed out in its editorial against smoking bans, smoking and food go together. So when restaurants force smokers out into the area's cold weather, those smokers do not go out to eat. They stay home and keep an equal number of non-smokers with them.
The result is a 40 percent to 60 percent loss in sales for bars and restaurants with bars. In California, this meant the closing of almost all non-chain restaurants and bars six months to three years after a smoking ban. And that was in a state where the weather does not deter smoking outside; you can expect a greater impact here.
In addition, many smokers are older or retired people, and pushing them outside in weather that lately has been dangerously cold probably would create higher health costs than would the status quo.
The well-financed special interests against the legal activity of smoking will coerce legislators into making a major mistake. Please let your representatives know that they should have all the facts before acting.
Troy is former economic development director of the Kittson County (Minn.) Office of Economic Development.
Ping!
WOW.............someone who really gets it.
The recent firing of smokers who indulge on their own time is a different matter, however.
Should employers now be allowed to fire fat people (heart problems), gays (risk of AIDS), sports enthusiasts (various injuries) and women (maternity leave)?
As a non-smoker, this has little bearing on me, personally.
I have no problem with the owners making these decisions......but I am firmly against the government forcing PRIVATE property owners to do so, generally against thier will.
As a smoker I am healthier than most of my collegues. They manage to get sick far more often than I do. And it's not just the flu...we have an amazing number of sports injuries too.
This is bold faced discrimination and if allowed to go unchecked, there will be nothing and no activity safe from the "Weyco" model.
I know it! And he tells it like it is about the financial impact the smoking bans have had on private business's.
Smoking in a public place is one thing, but surely you can't believe that the government telling a private business owner how to run his business is a good thing.
Not yet. But don't think it won't happen to you someday with something else.
How about as a consumer?
Do you have a favorite restaurant?
Is it privately owned? ( Not a national chain )
How would you like it if your favorite restaurant or bar closed?
Do any freinds or relatives work at such establishments?
Do you wish to assist in their financial survival while they look for new employment?
Just food for thought..
Absolutely. If what the anti-smoking lobby says is true, that most people want to enjoy their evenings without smoke, then fine. Let's invite bar owners to voluntarily go non-smoking, all of us smokers will just go to the bars with the ashtrays. But when you start forcing establishments to conform, you start getting into murky water.
I'm a Brit, I never thought it would work in NYC, and even then, never Ireland. Very disturbing.
If you read the WHOLE statement you'd see I DISAGREE with my employer telling me what to do on my own time.
Just one other thought for you to contemplate:
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoller
Other people's freedoms are your concern too..
. . . yet.
Government's control over smoking should stop at the door of a business establishment in the form of "Smokers Welcome" or "No Smoking". The choice of entry then becomes a mutual decision between the owner and patron.
Yes, it is very disturbing.
I truly don't believe it is working in NYC, regardless of the claims of the supporters of it.
Most of the "proof" they use to justify the claims of "it's working"' are based upon tax receipts from all types of establishments, including chains, fast food, catering, along with bars and restaurants. The mix apples and oranges.
The catering side of her business is the only thing that has enabled a friend of mine to keep her restaurant/bar open since the smoking ban took effect in Delaware. When the weather is nice she has an advantage over other places because she has outside seating. The establishments of other friends have not faired as well, except for those with catering. So by checking tax receipts - it looks like those businesses have improved because of the ban, when the truth is only their off-premise business has done well.
If we are to believe that smoking is killing thousands then it would be irresponsible for lawmakers to do anything less than ban smoking and cigarettes. Fat chance that will happen because smokers are an easy way to raise a lot of taxes. Lawmakers have now gotten themselves into a quandry...they are being pushed by the anti-smoking jihad to drastically limit smoking yet they cannot live without the tax revenue smoking raises.
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.