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.
Hmmmmmmm...so do you drink alcoholic beverages? Are you too fond of fattening foods?
:-)
I can get nasty, but I get nasty SECOND. Then, I stay that way.
I tried that. Then whenever I saw one of the usual suspects, I'd just get nasty right out of the box. Then I realized that these are circular arguments with us standing on one side yelling "yes" and the dweebs standing on the other yelling "no" with very few minds actually being changed.
So now I swing by, check it out, but keep my mouth mostly shut. Same old, same old, same people claiming private property is public, same sh!t from dorks that think they're gonna live forever.
I still get a chuckle from you and all the old gang from the Puff List, but arguing with these folks just gets the old BP soaring, so to hell with it. I'm going to keep on doing what I've done ever since I reached majority forty years ago, which is doing what I want, when I want, where I want and devil take the hindmost.
OMG - that is hilarious!!!!!!!!!
I don't get to listen to Rush as often as I used to but he does really dislike the nico-gnatzies.
Proponents of increasing excise taxes contend that states may direct additional tax revenue to programs favored by voters in economically strapped times. These programs include Medicaid, economic development, health research, and various education programs. Moreover, advocates assert that increasing taxes have substantial economic and health benefits. Raising excise taxes increases rates of tobacco cessation and provides long-term health care savings to the states. Advocates reject the assertion that excise taxes are regressive and negatively impact lower-income individuals. Higher smoking rates among lower-income groups mean that their health suffers the most from tobacco-related illnesses. Consequently, lower-income groups will benefit the most from any effective new measures to reduce smoking, including increased state cigarette taxes.
Opponents of increased excise taxes argue that smokers-23 percent of the population-carry a disproportionate tax burden. Tax revenue is often used to fund expansive government programs unrelated to tobacco cessation, tobacco prevention and the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. Further, opponents assert that increasing excise taxes is not a panacea for state budget crises. Excise tax revenue is sensitive to consumer demand, which it contends has fallen since the 1960's. Therefore, the amount of excise tax revenue collected by the states may vary annually. State governments would better address budget shortfalls by identifying sustainable sources of new revenue.
2003 Legislative Activity
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/tobaccotaxes.htm
PlEASE STAY...
How does this not apply to smokers who demand nonsmokers must beathe their smoke ?
I'm on the nonsmoking section of this thread, shouldn't that be enough ? Or do you want a full ban ?
Well, enjoy your gloating while you can, because you won't be smiling that smug smile for long, I guarantee it.
Why don't you just go smart off somewhere else? You're living in a bubble of gleeful ignorance, and I'm telling you, it's gonna get popped.
Buh-bye.
Before the 1850s very few people had heated homes!
It's immaterial to me if you personally breathe or not. It's obviously not the quality of the air that concerns you, it's whether or not you can detect any burnt tobacco molecules.
You're a dear and I'm glad to see you. Buncha nice folks on this thread, along with the usual suspects. ;-D
P.S. What's more, you've given the needle they're going to do it with.
Cheers!
It's about time someone slaps down the freedom grabbers.
Really ?
Ancient Egypt.
A stone hearth on the floor would allow for a fire to produce heat on cold evenings.
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women_in_ancient_egypt.htm
Finally a reasonable contribution from an anti-smoker.
You are correct and it is something I have been saying since the 1980's.
As I said earlier on this thread, one of the most vocal OPPONENTS of the Delaware smoking ban was someon who owns a restaurant/bar that was a non-smoking establishment. The statewide smoking ban destroyed his market.
In Maryland the various counties can make changes beyond the current state law regarding restrictions on smoking in PRIVATE businesses........as of right now, none of the counties on the Delaware border are considering further restrictions on businesses, that I am aware of. They would be foolish, they would lose the increased business (tax revenue) they're getting from Delawareans who won't put up with the ban.
And if you or any one has doubts that the smoking ban in Delaware is not helping the hospitality industry in Maryland nad Virginia - just ask the various proprietors in both states near the state lines or at the resort areas.
What's a pro-tax post doing on a conservative board?
George Burns lived to be over 100 years old and so do many other smokers.OTOH,lots of nonsmokers die rather young and it has NOTHING to do with second hand smoke. ;^)
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.