Posted on 04/22/2006 4:26:18 PM PDT by SheLion
You're awakened to the sound of furious pounding on your door.
“This is the police, permission to enter!”
The voice seems loud enough to wake the neighborhood. You look at your alarm clock - 6:15 A.M. - and you wonder what on earth is going on. You stumble towards the door and open it, only to be greeted by a dozen black-garbed men with submachine guns. They quickly set you aside and begin rummaging through everything you own. One of the officers spots several cigarette butts in an ashtray on your kitchen table, and places them in a plastic bag labeled “Evidence.” Before you know it, you're headed to the local police station in handcuffs. The following day, the police blotter in the local newspaper reads, “local citizen charged with class 1 misdemeanor for possession of tobacco.”
Does that situation sound too ridiculous to ever happen? It should. But think about it: the police already conduct raids that are just like the one I described. Except they're for marijuana. Actually, I witnessed one while I was on my way to the bus stop one morning a couple months ago.
Now consider the fact that cigarettes are more harmful than marijuana, and considerably more addictive. Also consider the fact we seem to be experiencing the beginning of a war on tobacco, with bans on smoking in public places cropping up everywhere. Does the situation I described seem so farfetched now? I really see it happening 10 or 20 years into the future, if current trends continue.
Of course, I'm not saying that all the people who want to ban smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces actually want to ban smoking entirely. But the problem is that the ban on smoking in those so-called “public” places (they're actually private property) is a slippery slope towards a total ban. That is because the people arguing against smoking in those places are arguing as if saving lives is more important than anything else - including freedom.
If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, then we'd have to outlaw alcohol (kills 80,000 Americans per year), obesity (300,000 per year) and finally, tobacco (400,000 per year).
I'm not sure if I believe the numbers are actually that high, but regardless, people die because of those things. If life was the overriding value, then we'd have to round up all drinkers, the obese and smokers, put them in camps, and “reeducate” them so that they would live healthier lifestyles.
I don't really think we want that. What we need to do instead is recognize that a wide range of things are valuable, including life, freedom, and happiness. And we also need to recognize that we are not omniscient, and our values aren't necessarily the same as other people's values. Therefore, we shouldn't act like we're doing “good” by imposing one value on everyone.
Rather, we should let people make their own value judgments as much as possible. If someone judges that smoking is more valuable than avoiding health problems down the road, then we shouldn't interfere if we respect him or her as an autonomous person. The freedom to choose may very well result in people choosing dangerous activities that eventually kill them. So be it.
When you hear a statistic like “Tobacco kills 400,000 Americans per year,” remember that tobacco isn't jumping out of bushes and killing people that walk by at night. People choose to smoke tobacco, and they choose to accept the health risk (which is well known by now). You may try to convince these people to change, but you may not force them to change.
Unfortunately, many of the people involved in government and public health haven't realized that yet. Our current Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, has stated that he supports a ban of all tobacco products. Also, about 25 states have some sort of ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, workplaces or other “public” areas. A number of public health groups are working right now to make Virginia a “smoke-free” state.
A lot of what is happening is due this claim: smoking doesn't just kill smokers but also other people with second hand smoke. That claim sounds so plausible that even I used to believe it. The problem is that it's unproven. You can cite all the studies you want that “show” that SHS kills, and I can tell you why they have problems. The most fundamental problem with them is that most claim a relative risk from SHS of about 1.3.
A relative risk of 1.3, in theory, means that living with a smoker all your life increases your risk of getting cancer by about 30%. In reality though, a relative risk below about 2 or 3 doesn't mean anything at all. According to the National Cancer Institute, “In epidemiological research, relative risks of less than 2.0 are considered too small and difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”
In addition, the 1.3 is for people who live with a smoker all their lives. For people who are exposed to a little smoke in restaurants and bars on weekends, I think we can safely assume that the increase in risk of getting cancer is zero. SHS, therefore, is a non-issue.
We need to reverse this disturbing trend towards banning tobacco. Regardless of whether you smoke or not (I don't), you should still care about preserving freedom from misguided people. However good their intentions may be.
Good hearted, but misguided people like the RWJF, who fund and spearhead these bans, and who's parent company makes Nicoderm and Nicotrol?
I just appreciate the freedom that allows those who choose to indulge in that (or other) behavior to do so. I also value the private property rights of bar and restaurant owners to make their own decisions as to whether to allow smoking or not.
And yet you get insulted when people call you on your flame-bait trolling?
Yeah... you've got issues.
And you wonder why fewer and fewer people take you seriously?
You're welcome.
The owner of my favorite establishment told me that he supported the move to ban smoking at all bars in the county. I told him that he should just make that decision for himself rather than allow government to usurp his right to decide. He was afraid that it wasn't the right decision and would prefer that all were prohibited so that he wouldn't get hurt by going it alone.
I'm glad that he sold the place. Smoking is still allowed and many, but not all patrons smoke. Cigar are also permitted and I think that it is a plus.
As opposed to the number of people who take YOU seriously?
Lame comeback. Get's about a 2.4 on my childish scale. You are improving...
You think it's lame because you think other people take Libertarians seriously.
They don't. It's that whole drug thang.
Does sinky get a warning to not hang on the abuse button as well? Or is that just for folks like me who are pointing out ACTUAL violations of the Terms of Use?
If they would allow smoking and non smoking restaurants,
everyone would be happy.
Nobody forces anyone through the door..
Which seems to be lost on the "anti-smoking at any cost" crowd. I guess to them, we really MUST be saved from ourselves. Even if it kills us.
Yep.
Except when they are taxing us to the hilt for their social programs.
Seems if they really wanted to save us, they would ban them.
The RWJF is NOT good hearted. They are some of the biggest gun grabbers in the country, and their campaign are all based on increasing profits to Johnson & Johnson. It disgusts me that these scumbags own my beloved New York Jets.
You want LESS of a behavior, but then you not only subsidize tobacco farmers but then you count on the taxation of said product to fund vital services.
It's all about POWER and GRAFT. It has nothing to do with some imagined "public good." The "public good" IS the "individual good". It never works the other way around.
If I recall correctly, DC is not a Libertarian but a small-l libertarian. There is a very big difference. I can understand how the drug issue could be disagreed upon by good conservatives, but what specific issues do you have with domestic libertarian philosiphy other than that? Do you agree that there should be a literal interperetation of the 2nd Amendment? That the federal government does not belongh in education and health care? That the size of the government should be drastically reduced?
Yeah... I mentioned that in the post that got pulled. It was the second, and I thought adaquately self censored... but apparently not, part of that post that got it pulled.
Kinda makes it hard to discuss things rationally. I've noticed that there are several topics that get this treatment here.
You're not supposed to notice that. You're supposed to see the big "anti-drug" signs on their front groups like jointogether.org, and be blinded to their gun control agenda.
I honestly consider the RWJF to be a bigger threat to this country than moveon.org.
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.