Jim and the monitors are fair IMHO. You call us all Nazi and we post things like 
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.
"When these new data for cervical cancer are considered in light of similar results from previously published studies, our findings suggest that passive smoking may be firmly linked with cervical cancer," wrote lead author Anthony J. Alberg.
"SUGGEST" and "MAY BE." Not "PROVE" and "IS."
I'm not reading any more of this crap. Cervical cancer is definitely linked with having sexual intercourse, nuns have an extremely low rate. It's usually due to one of the 38+ HPV viruses.
If this is the kind of junk science you're going to be posting, you might as well go try to sell boiling oil in he!!.
As long as it agrees with your stance you believe everything you read, don't you?
I know what you mean.
but I'm an old-timer that knows how to deal with them.......LOL!!!!
Yes, that one showed up less than a month after cinFLA quit posting....
That appears to be the general consensus.....and since ole cinnie always equated correlation with causation, ipso facto, they are probably one in the same.
What a neat bunch of folks here! Nice to see everyone. ;-D
And curiously seems to have the same OCD fixation with smoking, drugs, and George Soros.
Thanks! The same to you! ; )
I also went to the first link.
The interesting thing is they are only talking about a possibility in 2% of cervical cancer cases, as 98% are cause by HPV which is a sexually transmitted VIRUS. of course the anti-smokers will NEVER acknowlege that little factoid.
Thanks. It's good to be here.
I think I can say the rest of us think the same of you!!!!
Yeah. We went out to a local shop and tried out a couple of different types, bought an ounce and a half of the one she liked. I just finished cranking out 40 and she's loving them.
That's strange. I have seen it posted today complaining that the smoking bans are made by those "representatives" inferring that a democracy (where people voted on the bans) would be preferable. Which is is?
Jim and the monitors are fair IMHO. You call us all Nazi and we post things like
And, conversely, non-smokers never get sick and live forever, right?
Pretty low to quote Gabz out of context and ping JR too. I'm very happy that you will never die because you don't smoke.
I LOVE to go in Smoke Shops. There's one by that name, where I shop...they always have the neat accessories, and they smell good, and you can have a cigarette while you shop. ;-D
The "crack" was inferred as it was the subject of the comments. As I said, I have no time to waste debating your crack-legalization position as it will never come to pass.
I saw that too. Looks like some folks just can't seem to grasp sarcasm, nor have any idea what "LMAO" after a post like that usually means.
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.