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.
Yes, a nuisance tax on every word, they get sooooo windy trying to "help" us. Maybe 10 cents. That's not too high. And the proceeds could go toward reeducating them to stay out of other people's business (restaurants, bars, racetracks) and on minding their own (losing weight, getting a job).
These nannies on the threads here are liberals. I don't like liberals.
Well, I don't know a whole lot about PM, so I'd have to do some sniffing around to see why. Not saying you are wrong, but that I don't know much about it, rather.
I like it!!!!
I have a meeting this afternoon, so I'm going to take a long, leisurely bubble bath, do my nails, watch FoxNews, take the dog for a walk to practice heeling (he's coming along very well), then head out...
See y'all later. ;-D
See ya later...enjoy that bubble bath...it sounds heavenly. :)
Later, FRiend. ;-D
Well, I would certainly have to agree that they are definitely questionable. It's funny how liberal so-called conservatives can get when it comes to something they don't personally like or agree with.
I am getting an eye-opening experience, that's certain. :)
Good morning!
So, with Virginia's 1400% increase, there should be (140 X 7%) decrease in youth smoking, and a decrease of between 420% and 980% in adult smoking.
LOL! I guess that will realy clear the air in the Commonwealth...
It's about time. What gives smokers the idea they have the right to cause the rest of us to inhale their stench?
The same right an ugly person has to enter a private business -- the business extended an invitation. You're free to refuse the invitation.
That's got to be real annoying to the tree huggers.
I understand what you are saying.
In a nutshell, PM is the cause of many of our problems. Because they have the largest proportion of the market share, they have a tendency to dictate to the others, and win........always to the detriment of smokers.
Examples are the MSA, and laws in various states to force the smaller and newer companies to pay into the MSA, even though some weren't even existance at the time the MSA was signed. They refuse to fight smoking bans and are known to support increased tobacco taxes...which they did here in Virginia last year.
Enjoy yourself!
They are, as you well state, totally blind when it comes to this issue.
I understand your reason for backing out of these type threads. My main reason for continuing participation is somewhere out there is someone who is really look for both sides of the issue.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
"The restaurant and bar bans are a done deal. That battle is over. The one smokers need to focus on is the move to claim child abuse when smoking at home around children. But, as they have proved in the past, they will stay in denial until its too late. Denial and smoking must go hand in hand."
Yep and reading certain books will be deemed hate literature and banned from being read around children. Wait (check out the spelling) until reading material is banned, it will happen, the battle is raging in other areas of the world....
I hope you will still be applauding this infringement on property rights when your bible is confiscated and burned!
"And now they are choosing to stop serving them. Its simple economics. Its more profitable if an area wide smoking ban is in effect."
Ah, the "government intervention in the market is good for the economy" theory.
Go away!
"The bottom line is do we cater to the convenience of a few for the convenience of the many ?"
We cater to the individual. That is precisely why the blood was spilt to give us individual liberty and freedom. However much you despise these things, that is what they are.
LOL! Maybe she would have liked it better if Bill had smoked his cigars, after all.
She's probably in "the home."
All the signs were there.
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.