Posted on 01/10/2005 10:52:26 AM PST by aynrandy
Hide your smokes and unhealthy contraband. The tyrants of wellbeing are back.
Apparently, the Denver City Council is never too busy to intercede with some good old-fashioned social engineering. And soon enough, smoking in restaurants and bars will be banned.
It's enough to make a holier-than-thou politician - with pristine pink lungs - shriek with delight.
Jeanne Faatz, at this point, is the lone voice of reason on the council. She still believes in trivial things like free enterprise and property rights.
She's sort of an outsider. And although she won't admit it on record, I'm certain the other council members put shaving cream in her shoes, lock her out of meetings and blow spitballs at her.
Don't misunderstand me. Faatz hates smoking. She detests the habit so strongly that she can't stop complaining about it - it causes her to be hoarse and sneeze and makes her stomach coil. She hates being put in this position, protecting smokers.
But Faatz, in contrast to the missionaries of healthful living, appreciates that the ban is not a smoking issue but a matter of freedom.
Faatz loathes sitting next to a smoker in a restaurant. Who doesn't? But she does something extremely peculiar: She gets up, walks out and finds an establishment where she doesn't have to.
"My decision comes from the fact that you have private ownership in business, and they should have the right to target whatever customers they feel the marketplace will give them," she explains. "If, indeed, nobody frequented a smoking establishment, I say, 'Right on, the marketplace has spoken."'
Faatz believes choices and decisions are key in a free society. It's expedient to say, "Yuck, I don't like smoke." But ask yourself this: Do you think government should dictate how a person runs a business? What about customers? Should they be allowed to decide whether they want an all-smoking restaurant or a nonsmoking restaurant?
What if the Denver City Council concluded that cellphones at work should be banned because they have been linked to brain tumors?
Are there justifiable reasons for intervention? Sure. If there is contaminated food or other hidden health issues, government must protect citizens. Full disclosure is imperative. But when the sign in front of a steakhouse reads "smoking allowed," adults should be able to make their own decisions.
Besides, a steady diet of steaks wrapped with bacon is probably apt to kill you a lot faster than secondhand smoke.
We all know what's next. "What about those unfortunate, powerless, coughing employees?" The logical answer given by Faatz is simply that "it is a person's choice where they work." Who is forcing you to work in a smoke-filled diner?
But for the moment, let's advance the argument further: If everyone with a risky job should be protected from all hazards, where would we end up?
You realize the stress a stockbroker goes through? What about the stress a cop experiences? Yes, stress kills far more people than the wildly overstated threat of secondhand smoke. And who can deny the dangers of being a bike messenger, a cabbie or a firefighter?
Smoke Free Denver, another group of sanctimonious nanny types, wants to sabotage freedom for smokers and property owners "to protect the health of Denver residents, workers and visitors from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke."
Well, what about the claims of tens of thousands of deaths due to secondhand smoke?
It's junk science. The University of Chicago's Dr. John Bailar, a critic of the tobacco industry, has produced a detailed analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine debunking the supposed link between secondhand smoke and heart disease. His study is one of many.
But if you don't believe them, there are long lists of smoke-free establishments for you to go to. Enjoy.
David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
If there was an ignore button, they'd be using it too, and we'd end up in two separate conversations with everyone in each agreeing with each other. Think how boring that would be. It would be like having two separate forums, Free Republic and Smoke-Free Used To Be a Republic.
I like it better this way.
I'm with you on this one, although there have been a few times I've wished heartily for an ignore button for some of the more obnoxious and/or nasty posters I've come across.
Overall, though, it's better this way, I agree. :) Now don't start fighting with me! LOL
I say THEY stink up the threads with their anti-property-rights nanny state government mandated social engineering, that's what I say. ;-D
I try my best to remember not to speak about someone without pinging them.......I'm not perfect, but I try.
There was no reason for me to ping Jim Robinson to that post (or this one for that matter) because as I stated, he is quite aware of the mentioned situation and is aware I make reference to it.
Regardless of your "intentions" you did take my comment out of context and in doing so implied I was calling Mr. Robinson a coward, when I would never in a million years even dream of doing such a thing.
I don't give a flying flip about insults to me or about me.........but I take major offense at anyone attempting to make it look like I am insulting someone else. And that is exactly what you tried to do.
LOL, they are stinky, but we're stuck with them! :)
I wonder where all these anti cigarette people are....seems to me like just as many people are smoking now as ever were....I can count the former smokers I know on the fingers of one hand. If their message is so right, why are so many people ignoring it? Why are smoke-free restaurants and bars going out of business? Why do kids think it's daring and fun to smoke, again? Why is Bloomberg worried about getting re-elected?
Just as long as we don't mention them by name.............
ROFLMPJO!!!!!!!
ROFL!!!!!!!!
You've got no clue what you are talking about or to whom you are attempting to do so.
I would just so love to see an ad like that...and we may, it could happen. ;-D
I'm not the one whose life depends on it.
I like your isolation idea.
there have been a few I've wanted to call the viking kitties upon, but have resisted the urge. I guess I'm just a nice person at heart.
There are actually many more non-smokers, including those who do have a medical problem that is impacted by exposure to smoke (of any kind), here at FR that are actually on our side, but stay out of these threads because they do tend to get VERY nasty. I've had numerous conversations with them on this subject, and many others.
There are also a lot of smokers who no longer participate in these threads because of the level of nastiness on both sides.
I can imagine. It seems a pretty stupid and trite thing to say to someone who has suffered because of a serious addiction, and come out the other side. I know I would be offended as well. Heck, I already am.
Well, it's hard to have a decent debate when insults are being hurled at us.
And they act like they haven't said anything that we should be offended by...that's what's so wierd about them...
I can get nasty, but I get nasty SECOND. Then, I stay that way. A terrible fault of mine, bless my heart. ;-D
Yes, yes, You smokers are making good progress. Keep up the stiff resisitance
BTW, I wanted to know if you're a member of Rush 24-7. If so, have you seen the items Rush has listed in his Stack Of Stuff about this issue?
"FReepers" who support a nanny-state, anti-private property rights, social engineering agenda are FINOS.
FREEPERS IN NAME ONLY.
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.