Oh my!
Posted on 05/21/2006 4:00:08 AM PDT by SheLion
As a physician who has devoted 21 years to advocacy in tobacco control, conducting research and publishing a number of studies on the hazards of secondhand smoke, it is not surprising that I favor a wide range of anti-smoking measures. But anti-smoking tactics adopted by some municipalities, companies and organizations do not serve smokers or the public. The methods are mean-spirited, unsupported by science and attempt to stamp out smoking by punishing and marginalizing smokers. They go too far.
The City Council in Calabasas, Calif., recently enacted an ordinance - supported by several anti-smoking groups - that bans smoking in just about all outdoor areas of the city, including streets and sidewalks, unless there is no other person within 20 feet.
The expressed purposes of the ordinance are to protect nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke and to reduce “the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle.”
The hazards of exposure to smoking in the workplace have been proven, but there is no scientific evidence that shows that small, transient exposures to secondhand smoke in outdoor areas - places where people can easily avoid prolonged exposure - represent any serious public health problem.
The argument that these policies are needed to prevent children from seeing people smoke in public would ostracize citizens for pursuing a legal activity. What comes next? Laws that ban fat people from the public square so that children won’t associate obesity with public acceptability? Laws that prohibit people from eating fast food in public so children won’t see this behavior and associate it with a healthy lifestyle?
Frustrated by its inability to outlaw smoking, this arm of the anti-smoking front seeks to outlaw smokers. I’m all for efforts that make smoking seem less glamorous, desirable or cool, but it is wrong to restrict people’s rights because you do not like what they do.
Equally disturbing is another trend applauded by the anti-smoking movement that would have employers fire or refuse to hire smokers. According to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a Washington, D.C.-based anti-smoking organization: “Firing smokers is an appropriate and very effective way to stop burdening the great majority of employees who wisely chose not to smoke with the enormous unnecessary costs of smoking by their fellow employees.”
Michigan-based Weyco Inc., announced a policy of denying employment to smokers last year, and it has been followed by the World Health Organization, Scotts Miracle-Gro, Crown Laboratories, the city of Melbourne, Fla., and Truman Medical Centers in Kansas City, Mo.
ASH, along with these employers, argues that these policies are appropriate because they will reduce the increased health care costs associated with smoking. But what they also do is make smokers second-class citizens, depriving them of the right to make a living to support themselves and their families.
Is ASH serious? Should smokers not be allowed to hold jobs? Does it somehow promote public health to make the families of smokers go hungry? Should our society have two distinct classes, one that can work and another which cannot, simply because of a lawful, off-the-job behavior?
An appropriate public health policy for work-site health promotion would provide smoking employees with smoking-cessation programs, not fire them.
I fear that the anti-smoking movement is on the verge of running amok. Ultimately, what is at stake is the credibility of the tobacco-control movement, as well as the integrity of its evidence-based approach to the protection of the public’s health. If we lose that, then the truly legitimate, science-based aspects of tobacco control will be undermined. And then it will become difficult, if not impossible, to advance any policies to protect the public from the hazards of tobacco.
Oh my!
"Butt-inskis." Are those the people who go around saying, "Already posted here"?
No. The Doctor was just using that expression when he talks about the professional anti's forcing private businesses into smoking bans.
Yeah. Just wait until cholesterol count, or BMI, or genetic background is used to 'weed' out people.
BTW, coke and 'weed' are not legal. Cigarettes are.
What you seem to think was a problem is apparently getting farther away from what you would consider an ideal situation, not closer, and you are taking joy in that?
WTF?
Ah. You are correct.
I guess there is more than one type.
Ok, it showed up this time. This is the laughing face I tried to use when I answered you earlier. :)
Heheh!
I forgot to mention in the previous post that neither city would go ahead with a ban unless the other did. Evidently, they didn't believe all the talking points from the smoke free alliance.
You forgot gun-owners and Republicans...
Well, it's a good thing, too, because what the anti's are spewing are nothing but blatant lies!
Mrs. O'Leary's tavern in Gaithersburg, MD actually threw out a member of the Gaithersburg City Council after it was discovered that she supported the city's smoking ban. A little bit of justice for the Smoking Nazis, as far as I'm concerned.
Thank you.
I'm just finishing up my sixth twelve-hour shift. Need to get to bed now. G'nite!
Rolled my own when I smoked.
Yep, my view is 'let the market decide'. Especially WRT bars; I know of bars that had business pick up after the smoking ban in SanFrancisco; my wife's friend said she could stand to go out again, OTOH since my band gets paid a percentage of the bar I'm torn, my equipment and lungs age faster but smokers are often heavier drinkers, which is good for the bottom line......
I figured you might have posted the pic of the guy who was inverted....and maybe he had gone so far in he had disappeared.(8^D)
"Obviously, I was generalizing."
yes, I know you were, but my point was that there comes a point where increasing the costs causes more problems even for those of us who try to take care of ourselves.
Thanks for the ping!
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.