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.
Be careful how you use that phrase, dear........the antis will blame it on your smoking. LOL!!!
All kidding aside, I understand exactly what you are saying. the ads that drive me stark raving nuts are the ones from Philip Morris........if smoking is so bad, why don't they just get out of the tobacco business? their hypocrisy is not lost on me or anyone I know.
This is very true. There are plenty of places that I have to go that does not allow smoking. Which is fine. Elevators, inside hospitals, Government Offices, grocery stores etc. But when I go out to dinner and I cannot smoke I refuse to spend my money in a place that can't accommodate me.
Recreation is my time and my dime and why would I pay for that personal abuse? I won't.
Or Maine.
I see your point. It's just like at first when they used to just print warning labels on cigarette packs. Sort of a "for your benefit" type thing.
I can see why you people are so passionate about this issue. It starts off pretending to just give us health related info and next thing you know you are standing in the rain next to a dumpster trying to have a smoke.
Hehe! I know it!
Well, you and I both know it's easy to sit behind a monitor and type out hate. I doubt very much if they would have the gall to come to our face in real life and spew this stuff. But it's easy behind their monitors.
Yep! It's ME again. LOL!
"It starts off pretending to just give us health related info and next thing you know you are standing in the rain next to a dumpster trying to have a smoke."
And your standing next to the owner of the business and his employees, not because he decided it would be more profitable, but because he was forced outside with his customers.
I will add my two cents. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has almost 50 states in their pockets.
When a state signs on to control, ban, restrict people who smoke and help to raise the taxes on cigarettes, the bigger the grant money the state will receive from the RWJ Foundation.
I did research on this. Maine is one of the states in the pocket. Maine went completely smoke free in all health care facilities, to include hospitals. It was within a year and a half that the local hospital received a big MRI machine and were in the process of remodeling.
They chopped off the heads of their staff, patients and visitors that smoke for blood money. The following map is old, but the blue states are the ones that are receiving huge grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:
This is a really touchy issue. What can a business owner do? Even if he wasn't forced to do this by law, he would still alienate a huge amount of non-smokers if he didn't accomodate their wishes. As smokers, we are in the minority. Actually, we seem to be one of the few minorities where it okay by the gov't to hate us.
Without a doubt. Cartoons are being made about this now....
Boy don't get me started on Phillip Morris. Two-faced SOB's. They put that big fancy ad on TV about how smoking is SO bad for us and don't start SMOKING! Yet the pukes won't stop making and selling cigarettes, will they? It's BS at the extreme.
Great cartoon. Well, at least I understand where you folks are coming from. What are with these "Ban-Addicts", as Gabz calls 'em? I guess I don't understand the logic behind their motivation. I have no problem with accepting people as they are and wouldn't try to force my viewpoints or lifestyle upon them.
I'm like you - I could on for ohours and hours about the perfidy of PM.
An interesting aside....It has actually been easier here in Virginia, where PM is king, to get folks to understand how bad they are and switch brands than it ever was in Delaware. More and more folks I know are switching from PM brands to one of the newer "upstart" non-MSA company's brands.
It's the job of the government to run the government. Not run private business's. It's really a mess.
What with the economy, I keep praying that the government will stop the funding going to the highly paid professional anti's so they will have to stop this banning and controlling people who purchase and use a legal commodity.
Either ban cigarettes or shut the heck up!
In all fairness, though the first pic "No smoking within 25 feet of Entrance" could be in front of a hospital or someplace where flammable materials could be present. I see your point, though. Particularly with your second image ... unbelievable.
I hope so! But you know PM will say that their anti-smoking ads have worked and now people are not smoking and/or quitting. You just know they have to have a positive spin on smoking to save face.
They will contribute their cigarette sales down to the fact that their propaganda has worked. I hate them.
Since cigs are heavily taxed, they won't be banned, so I guess they should take the second option. =)
That's the outside of Belleview hospital in NYC.
"Ban-addicts" are the busybody nanny do-gooders who are pushing for smoking bans everywhere and increased cigarette taxes to line their pockets.
They are far more addicted to control over others than any smoker ever was to nicotine.
The article never mentions the most important part of the problem. Not surprising.
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.