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.
As I said on the other thread before you followed me over here. I have no time to debate you on your pro-crack legalization platform.
How shocking....NOT!
I'm really sick of social engineers (I think that's the new pcname for interfering busybodies, isn't it?).
JAMA 10/1/03:
From the results of their systematic review, Dr Critchley and colleagues1 estimated that individuals who quit smoking have a 30% reduction in their risk of death from coronary heart disease (CHD). None of the 20 studies in this analysis, however, reported data regarding exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). This has been a consistent flaw in most published studies on the health risk of smoking.2 In healthy nonsmokers, exposure to SHS causes acute adverse changes in coronary circulation and increases the risk of CHD mortality by about 30%.3 While there has been a 70% decrease in exposure of persons to SHS since 1988-1991, about half of US nonsmoking adults continue to be exposed chronically to SHS,4 and thus it is likely that many nonsmokers in these studies were exposed to SHS.
I was asking for correlation, not speculation.
That's not what you said ... you said, "No time to debate today." Period.
Same here! I have 3 dogs and a cat that are 15+ years old. I guess them being around me and hubs smoking is making the same dent in their health as it is in the kids'----who have had perfect attendance for the last 3 years at *gasp* Public School!
Uh, the licensing regulations, meant to be "health" I suspect but I could be wrong, are normally there for things that the customer can't see and has no control over.
These things are, also, normally backed by proven science that has no, or very very little, wiggle in it.
The 2nd hand smoke health risk isn't even close to this. It's not only not in the ballpark, it's not in the neighborhood, city, county, state, or country with things such as food poisoning, roaches in the kitchen, etc.
The ONLY thing that these bans are based on is, "I don't like the smell."
Well, get over it. I don't like the smell of the local Arab restaurant either. We better ban Arab food.
And don't give me the old, 'majority of the people', we don't live in a democracy. At least we're not supposed to.
We live in a representative constitutional republic that is supposed to guarantee and defend the rights of the property owners.
Oh, the second hand smoke BS is included in the Delaware law.
And just like you, I despise the social engineer types with a passion.
Some of them have.
But the newest anti-smoker re-tread is really a pain in the keister.
You really should consider putting down the bottle of your screen name once in a while.
Actually correlation is not much better than speculation as correlation does NOT equal causation.
On the plus side, I convinced my Wife to roll her own as well. WOO-HOO!
Yup. The same as anecdotes about Uncle Bill do not equal data.
OMG.....now you've done it..........you have uttered the words that trigger the onslaught of the HTTs.....kids, smoking, and Public School..........
Be afraid, be very afraid.
ROFLMPJO!!!!
Thanks for the ping! This is the first ping I received on this thread. And no, he certainly isn't on 'my' ping list.
Let me read this. Thanks again!
Someone has to do it. I'll put on my Kevlar.
LOL!!! I'm not very PC myself.....I really like sniveling crybabies!!!!
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.