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.
No, it ONLY matters what I do during the time I am at work and being paid. If my company wants to tell me what to do 24/7, they should pay me for that time. If I don't abide, they have every right to fire me at that point.
Luckily, my company has no ban on eating pizza at home or I'd be fired instantly!
" The recent firing of smokers who indulge on their own time is a different matter, however."
I agree. I wondered why there was not grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. I suspect we may have not heard the end of that story. I have the same basic problem with the hate crimes laws. Where is our equal protection?
"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."
THEN WHY DOES MY WINDPIPE CLOSE UP AND I START GAGGING AND GETTING ASTHMATIC WHEN I'M AROUND SMOKERS BUT NOT WHEN MY OVEN IS ON, OR MY TELEVISION, OR WHATEVER OTHER SO-CALLED RISKS OF THE HOME AND WORKPLACE OF WHICH HE SPEAKS. WHY DOESN'T HE LIST THESE RISKS. ALSO, THE OTHER NIGHT, MY HUBBY AND I WENT TO A SMALL PIZZA PLACE WHERE THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE SMOKING AND WHEN WE LEFT I HAD TO STRIP OFF ALL OF MY CLOTHES AND LAUNDER THEM AS WELL AS TAKE A SHOWER AND WASH MY HAIR TOO - IT WAS A PAIN IN THE BUTT - BECAUSE IT WAS SO HORRIBLE I COULDN'T BEAR IT. IT'S AN ADDICTION AND LIKE ALL ADDICTIONS, IT AFFECTS ONE'S BRAIN - LACK OF OXYGEN. YOU PRO-SMOKING CRUSADERS REMIND ME OF THE PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE (YOU'RE BOTH PRO-DEATH) AND BLIND, BLIND BLIND.
I don't believe azhenfud was referring to the WEYCO situation, but rather to government imposed smoking bans on bars and restaurants.
I also don't believe the government should be involved in who an employer chooses to hire based upon outside legal activities - that is somethign that should be negotiated by the employer and employee---not Big Brother.
Groups like the ACLU are to busy protecting the rights of terrorists-in-waiting too bother with trivial things like right of hoest hardworking americans.
And you are SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH.
What is so difficult to find a place that doesn't permit smoking or asking the owner of that place to change his policy.........why do you insist on Big Government taking care of your wants and needs and in doing so taking away rights from the owner of th PRIVATE establishment yuou VOLUNTARILY entered?
So, if I am disabled, over 40, black, female and don't follow my employers religion .... is that something that I should negotiate with them too?
I am a smoker. I understand and totally agree about the ban against smoking in public places and adjusted very easily to not smoking in restaurants and work etc.
That you "totally agree with the smoking in public places- ie: restaurants.
I said :
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.
You said:
If you read the WHOLE statement you'd see I DISAGREE with my employer telling me what to do on my own time.
We all agree to that, but PART of your statement states that you DO agree with smoking bans in restaurants. I am just asking you if you truly believe that this is right.
It may be that you have brought on your own discomfort by an over-zealous attention to cleanliness...
Go out and roll in the mud once in a while, cut the carpet cleaning in half, try smelling real flowers in a field instead of floral scented home deodorizers, and if all else fails, find a pizza place that is non-smoking..
I said "based upon outside legal activities " which is entirely different than what you are talking about.
Mind over matter? I know when I see someone throwing up, then "I" start gagging. Mind over matter?
I am not a lawyer, but to my limited knowledge, smoking at home is NOT illegal.
Private business owners should be able to decide if they want a smoke-free establishment or not. It's the proprietor's decision whether such a policy would be a positive or a negative for their establishment.
I personally would choose to spend my dollars in a restaurant that prohibits smoking. My guess is that many restaurants would go smoke-free in order to appear family-friendly, while most bars would continue to allow smoking.
...yet.
Well, when only 25-30% of the public smoke, the general non-smoking public think they are doing a good thing when they vote for smoking bans, etc. They do not realize what they do!
The bans not only hurt the smoker's, but they are killing private business owners and all the suppliers. Not good for the economy at all.
But of course, I am preaching to the choir. :)
Exactly. MacDonald's is a family restaurant and no smoking allowed which is fine. Plus, they serve a great hot apple pie. :)
When I saw your post, I thought, "oh no, YOU again." As for mind over matter, I don't have to see the smoke, it's just that my windpipe will start closing. Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it isn't valid. As for the stinky part of it, that's the truly sad thing about smokers, they don't realize how gross they smell and how gross they make us smell. I had two smoking parents and their home became yellowed. We've had tenants who smoke and I've seen windows covered with 1/8 inch thickness of tar. If it's covering the windows, what do you think it's doing to your lungs? Just wait til you get COPD or something like that. It's NOT just lung cancer that can ruin your life.
...yet.
Good point!
I know that.............I was making the distinction between you talking about legitimate bans on certain discriminations as opposed to outside legal activities, such as smoking.
I am not talking about age, race or religion and to compare them with not hiring smokers is mixing apples and oranges.
I don't want to take the right to not hire smokers away from an employer, because that also means another employer can decide to ONLY hire smokers. This does work both ways.
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.