Posted on 01/05/2006 6:57:14 AM PST by SheLion
Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.
Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.
Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.
The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.
For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.
In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."
Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.
A note of disclosure: Our organization has no ties to the tobacco industry nor do we speak on the behalf of the hospitality industry.
Audrey Silk
FOUNDER
NYC CITIZENS LOBBYING
AGAINST SMOKER HARASSMENT
BROOKLYN
Thank you.
They huddle around the front door because they've been kicked out of the building.
Would you prefer them to stand in the middle of the street then?
Sheesh. You'll never satisfy a anti-smoker.
If the smokers were allowed to smoke in their offices, or at least in a "lounge" you wouldn't have that problem, would you?
GMTA!!!!!!!
And WHY do they huddle around that front door?
Because they have been ejected from the building on the basis of junk science and scare tactics used by the anti-smokers. They can't even have a seperate room with a seperate ventilation system!
Maybe if they hadn't been FORCED out of the building you'd be able to walk in the front door without walking through their smoke.
You got that right, chica.
They don't even see the irony in it. So sad.
I'll tell ya what - you sit inside a closed garage with the car running for 30 minutes, and I'll sit inside the garage with a group of people smoking.
We'll see who makes it out alive.
More like big government populists.
It is hilarious!!!!!
I have a friend who is a Board Certified Pulmologist...He is a doctor that I would take my own family to. And I don't say that about many doctor's.
We have had this discussion, and he say's that for adults long-term problems from second hand smoke is a bunch of hooey... Although, second-hand smoke does ( generally short-term..) contribute to health problems..( ie: ENT type problems..) in small children.
FWIW..........
I have said all along that second hand smoke was a BS issue.
When the professional anti-smokers found out that their war on the smokers didn't work, they then went to the general non-smoking public, telling them that our smoke was killing them!
Can you imagine anyone believing that bunk? Hundreds of years people breath in second hand smoke. And just now it's a killer? heh!
So did many of us. But not very many of us experienced what you did. I guess it just depends on our environment above all else. A lot of different factors involved. Know what I mean?
I have been heating my home with wood. I live with sinus problems. Plus, I live in farm country surrounded by all the junk the farmers lay down on their fields. A lot of different things in the air around us. Very hard to pin point just one devil. :)
So are several FReepers, we have come to find out.
Are you saying they do this on purpose? I don't know how long your front door entrance is, but holding your breath for 4-5 steps isn't impossible. Maybe find a non-smoker friendly employer. I'm not trying to be an ass, but think about it. Since only you know what you don't like, why is it their responsibility to stay away from you? I can't stand the smell of some perfumes and colognes, but I would never expect the carriers of these smells to stay out of my way. It's much more effective for me to avoid them.
Your dislike of cigarette smoke doesn't make you a bad person at all. But trying to control the atmosphere of everywhere you decide to go isn't practical.
I think it all does, but as you know, fewer people smoke cigars and pipes than those who smoke cigarettes...
I always found out that if I hate something, I avoid it!
We used to have a separate room or smoking lounge while at work. Blame the smokers huddling outside the door on the anti-smokers. Remember the day at work when you never saw a smoker? We had our own warm room indoors.
Smokers huddled outside are just as miserable as you. It isn't the fault of the smokers.
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.