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.
Your idea of smoking only restaurants is a great one.
The problem is you can't do it in Massachusetts,
And that doesn't even scratch the surface, Gabz.
They also support the land grabs by the BLM in the ranching countries of Wyoming, Utah and the Dakotas.
They support the monitors in new automobiles which record your driving activities.
They support the seizure of private wetlands on the coasts of Texas, Louisiana and Florida by the Corps of Engineers.
They support the government's right to tell a landowner what he can and can't do with his own property if endangered species are involved.
All of this only scratches the surface, too, and remember:
"It's for your own good!" - the mantra of the liberal establishment.
Government intrusion in private business can never be justified. This is why so many businesses are outsourcing----less government intrusion,less lawsuits,and less hassle!
Let's see, I am over 40 and smoke (admittedly not a lot, though). I also jog, when weather permits, have a brown-belt in Karate and an orange belt in Krav Maga.
mmmmmmm oxygen bottle.
Of course, and I would normally agree with you, but having recently been fired from a long time job because of discrimination, I am now glad that there are laws to fight back with.
Hey,T.C.----they're baaaaaack!!!!!!!
I think somewhere there's a momma liberal who keeps shoving these copies of herself out of her tail.
All of them are pretty much alike.
Nuke 'em! That's the only way to be sure!
You've got that right,they are like Aliens.
Gonna sign off now,have a smoke,stink up my house,get some filth on my windows,smell up my hair and clothing,and cause my dog to suffer extreme distress from the smoke.
I will then go,two steps at a time,upstairs to my bedroom and go to sleep.
Life is good!!!
Good night!
Isn't that what everyone keeps saying about liberals?
Maybe they should nuke hypocrites from texas and their "mommas".
oh, by the way weren't you the one who posted "Calm down, FRiend" a while back? Take your own advise, pardner.
Who are you going to believe, Rush or vigilante anti-smokers who created the bogus studies that second hand smoke causes cancer (and other horrendous diseases)?
That was darn good, Garnet. Very enjoyable reading and some excellent points!
Fat people are already in the crosshairs.
I smoke, I don't smoke, my life does not revolve around whether I smoke or not.
I know people who's lives actually revolve around promoting smoking bans, getting people to quit smoking, and promoting removing children from homes of smokers.
And they call me an addict???????
I spent the better part of the day tearing out a ceiling, I would venture to say the stuff that was coming down from there is more dangerous than any second hand smoke any whiner has ever encountered. And as soon as the weather warms up a little bit, I'm going to be tearing off the asbestos shingles on my house........
If I wind up with some respiratory ailment, who can say for a fact it was my smoking? NO ONE. I've dealt with asbestos shingles and such for most of my life. As I mentioned above, I tore down the asbestos laden tile ceiling in my bedroom today. I had the exact same type ceilings when I was growing up. And tore those out with my dad long before I ever started smoking.
The ban addicts are loons - they think if they stop everyone from smoking all will be well and good. I'd like to know how much they are willing to pay to get rid of smoking. If you notice, none of them are in favor of making tobacco illegal. Just making smokers pariahs that foot their bills.
And they call me an addict???????
Hahaha ... good point.
Fat people are already in the crosshairs.
True. First they are going after places like McDonald's (like they did the tobacco co's). Next they'll go after overweight people themselves (like they are now with smokers).
So how long before we see "Obese" and "Non-Obese" sections in restaurants?
Thank you for adding the rest.
I had only used smoking, guns, and alcohol because of my knowlege of the connection with RWJF.
Anyone that buys a product from Johnson & Johnson is supporting the erosion of the Consitution. Anyone that supports in any way any ban on the use of tobacco products is supporting gun control and alcohol prohibition.
Plain and simple - and that is the way it must be stated.
I also enjoyed and learned from, your comments. Well done.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sleep well. my FRiend, I'm not far behind you.
I must say, I got a kick out of that comment, SL !!!!!! Posters on these smoking threads sure don't hold back, particularly the anti-smokers.
Can you please tll me what RWJF is?
To be honest, neither. I don't need Rush to tell me what I already know from looking at the books of places before and after bans.
And I've read the same studies the antis have created their bogus headlines from. I've done everything I possibly can to explain that the headlines the MSM spew out have nothing to do with the reality, but those who choose to be believers will not listen to reason.
The selectiveness of some regarding the MSM is truly amazing. I've seen so many on threads about smoking bans claiming SHS is a killer, that I have also seen on threads trasing the MSM for their biased and bogus reporting.
I find it very typical - government intervention/control is just fine with them, as long as it suits their purpose. But they are the first to scream when it is their ox being gored.
I can not and will not take that position.
What makes you think my remark was intended for you?
Do you think you're that important? If it had been addressed to you, I would have pinged you.
I wasn't the one who told you to calm down. That was Gabz.
I wouldn't have said it that way.
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.