Sanctimonious Smoking Nanny

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.

January 10, 2005

Update from the States: Tobacco Taxes and Smoke-Free Policies in Action

The past few years have produced unprecedented advances in tobacco-control policies, particularly with excise tax increases and the implementation of new clean indoor air laws. The gains that have been made in both of these areas recently have continued in the 2004 state legislative sessions.

Since 2002, 33 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have increased their excise taxes on tobacco products. The average state tax on a pack of cigarettes is now over 74 cents per pack, nearly twice what it was just a few years ago. The highest tax in the country is in New Jersey, at $2.05 per pack, while nearby New York City has a combined city and state tax of over $3 per pack.

Although there have been fewer increases passed in 2004, some of them have come where they were most needed: in the heart of tobacco country. In February, Virginia increased its tax to 35 cents per pack — low by national standards but much higher than the 2.5 cent per pack tax that had been on the books since 1964. And in May, Alabama increased its tax by 26 cents per pack.

These increases will not only help ease states’ financial woes, but, more importantly, serve as a strong incentive to reduce tobacco consumption. Studies show that for every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes, youth smoking goes down by seven percent and overall smoking goes down by three to five percent.

Similar progress has been made in passing comprehensive clean indoor air laws. This July, a new law will go into effect in Idaho banning smoking in most workplaces, including restaurants. Idaho will become the eighth state with a strong statewide law in place. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and New York have banned smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Florida and Utah, like Idaho, have strong state laws that exempt bars. These states join hundreds of cities across the country that also ban smoking in most public places.

As with tax increases, recent advances with smoking bans have come in the heart of tobacco country. Although opponents challenged it all the way to the Kentucky Supreme Court, a new law banning smoking in all public places, including restaurants and bars, went into effect in Lexington, Ky., in April. In many ways this is the highest profile smoking ban in any city in a tobacco growing state.

With the combined state and city smoking bans, over 30 percent of the country’s population now live in a jurisdiction covered by a comprehensive clean indoor air law. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes nearly 40,000 deaths per year, almost all of which are ischemic heart disease deaths.

There is now a massive amount of evidence showing that smoke-free laws do not harm business or employment in bars or restaurants, and may actually have a positive influence. The latest such evidence comes from New York City, where a report found that in the one year since the city’s comprehensive smoke-free law took effect business receipts for restaurants and bars have increased, employment has risen, the number of liquor licenses has increased, virtually all establishments are complying with the law, and the vast majority of New Yorkers support the law.

With the positive outcomes from both excise tax increases and smoking bans, one can expect to see a lot more of both in the months and years ahead.

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.