About that level playing field (ANTI-SMOKING JIHADISTS RUN WILD AS VICTORY NEARS)

Star Newspapers ^ | February 4, 2007 | Tom Houlihan

[Chi-townChief]

Way back when, the closest thing to a "smoking ban" had to do with the age at which you could legally buy cigarettes. I think it was 12 or 13. After that, about half the teenage population seemed to be lighting up at least once an hour.

At Morgan Park High School, where I spent four years in the 1960s, there was a white line on the sidewalk a block away from the school building. That marked the point where the high school determined kids could smoke. It didn't stop the hard-core smokers who really needed to feed their habit -- between classes, they'd puff away in bathrooms so heavy with gray, fragrant clouds that you could barely see two feet in front of you. I recall not once going to the bathroom during my high school years.

These days, at the dinner table, I am guaranteed a big laugh by talking about my childhood doctor and how he'd examine me as he smoked. Wearing a stethoscope, he'd tell me to breathe in as his unfiltered Camel -- he wasn't one of those wimpy doctors who smoked Marlboros or Kents -- accumulated a big ash on the side of the desk.

Doctors weren't the only medical professionals who smoked. My mother used to regularly proclaim that "all nurses smoke." And patients, of course, were allowed to smoke in their hospital rooms.

Smoking was allowed in nearly all public places -- theaters were a notable exception -- and no one would give a second thought to lighting up on a bus or train, on airplanes, in restaurants, college dorm rooms or in the workplace.

That was truly a time when a "level playing field" existed for smokers. I came from a family of non-smokers but, as a kid, I can't remember my mom and dad ever complaining about being exposed to other people's smoke.

Things are sure different today and the concept of a level playing field, when it comes to smoking, refers almost exclusively to restaurants and bars. In the past few weeks, we have heard much about how a level playing field doesn't exist as long as there are restaurants and bars where smoking is allowed. In an era when smoking is banned in nearly all public places, the idea that a level playing field depends on people being able to fire up a smoke is more than a little sad.

But then, just about everything about smoking is sad. For smokers, it's an addictive behavior that can lead to serious health problems -- even death. For people who don't smoke, it is smelly and disgusting and pollutes the air that people who choose not to use tobacco products have to breathe.

Smoking bans in our Southland have been in the news a great deal as local communities debate whether to allow smoking in public, and especially at bars and restaurants. The most widely publicized smoking bans went into effect early last month in Orland Park, Tinley Park and Oak Forest. After a couple of weeks in which many bar and restaurant owners said they were being forced out of business by the anti-smoking ordinances, the three towns temporarily lifted the bans. In mid-March, a smoking ban in public places will take effect throughout suburban Cook County in towns that haven't adopted their own ordinances.

The concept of the level playing field has been a big part of the argument against smoking bans. As it turns out, smokers are not that loyal to places where they may have frequented for years if they cannot light up while there. Instead, they will head to another town where smoking is allowed. So as long as a restaurant or bar or bowling alley that allows smoking is within a reasonable drive, the playing field will not be level.

Whether there is a level playing field for non-smokers does not seem to be much of a consideration. In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the rights of people to engage in unhealthy behavior that they know jeopardizes their health -- it's just a choice they've made. We've heard about the rights of business owners to operate free from government interference. And we've heard about smoking bans being a page right out of the totalitarian playbook.

But there seems to be only one choice for non-smokers. If you don't like going to a place where people smoke, you can stay away. Don't go the restaurant or the bowling alley or the bar where people smoke -- you are free to make that choice. You don't have to work there. If you don't want your clothes to smell like an ashtray, stay away. If you don't want to be exposed to dangerous chemicals in the air, you can go to a movie.

Fact is, a lot of people made that choice a long time ago and decided not to go to places where someone a couple of feet away is fouling the air. I put myself in that category -- and I don't even consider myself a rabid anti-smoker. Over the years, I have liked many smokers a great deal. One of them, former Star business editor Jim Pecora, died of lung cancer about a month before the White Sox won the World Series, which would have made him ecstatically happy. He was a guy who loved life and it's sad he didn't get more of it.

I also think it's sad that workers in bars and restaurants, in calling for a level playing field last month, said they wanted smoking in their establishments so they could make a decent living.

"You want to be around that stuff?" I wondered. "Here is something that very possibly is affecting your health. But you'd rather take that risk?"

It's sad, this idea of a level playing field.

Tom Houlihan can be reached at (708) 802-8820 or thoulihan@starnewspapers.com

[Sherman Logan]

Given the large number of jurisdictions that have passed laws of this type, I'm sure there is some hard data available. But I don't recall seeing any. Odd. Both sides seem to talk in generalities.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alter Kaker]

We kill over 40,000 people a year in automobile accidents. Should we ban the use of cars because they endanger the other guy?

400,000 Americans die every year from smoking, even though only 20% or so of the population smokes (compared with nearly 100% who ride in automobiles).

Additionally, automobiles are a necessary component of the American economy. If Americans didn't ride in automobiles, the economy would collapse. Tobacco is a completely unnecessary component of the American economy. If tomorrow every American quit smoking, the economy would improve.

Sorry, I don't see a comparison between the two.

[Just another Joe]

400,000 Americans die every year from smoking, even though only 20% or so of the population smokes (compared with nearly 100% who ride in automobiles).

You're confused, Alter, that's the claim for ETS, not first hand smoking.

[Alter Kaker]

That being said...Quitting smoking or never smoking has never saved a single life. The only thing you can do is rearrange the timing of death.

I'd take it you'd argue that murder isn't killing, it's just "rearranging the timing of death?"

Try explaining that argument to the jury...

[Alter Kaker]

You're confused, Alter, that's the claim for ETS, not first hand smoking.

No, you're the one who's confused. The 400,000 deaths are total smoking related deaths in a year, the majority of which are smokers.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-attributable mortality and years of potential life lost — United States, 1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1993;42(33):645-8.

[Just another Joe]

The 400,000 deaths are total smoking related deaths in a year, the majority of which are smokers.

You just said it, total smoking related deaths, which according to the CDC includes all deaths that they have estimated are caused by ETS as well.

Don't try to pull the wool over my head. I've been researching this too long to be taken in by the likes of you.

[Alter Kaker]

Don't try to pull the wool over my head. I've been researching this too long to be taken in by the likes of you.

What the dickens are you talking about? The 400k figure is the annual number of total smoking related deaths.

Total Annual Smoking Related Deaths = Total Smokers Dead from Smoking + Total ETS Deaths.

What are you trying to argue here? What's in dispute?

[MortMan]

But there seems to be only one choice for non-smokers. If you don't like going to a place where people smoke, you can stay away. Don't go the restaurant or the bowling alley or the bar where people smoke -- you are free to make that choice. You don't have to work there. If you don't want your clothes to smell like an ashtray, stay away. If you don't want to be exposed to dangerous chemicals in the air, you can go to a movie.

The author forgets the other choice - open his own dang business and make it all non-smoking.

[Just another Joe]

What are you trying to argue here? What's in dispute?

What's in dispute is the number of deaths caused by ETS. It started out with 3,000, then jumped to 50,000, and then hit it's nadir of 340,000 that all the anti-smoking campaigners claim as a set in stone figure even though it is an estimate that has nothing to do with actual numbers.

Once again, and probably not for the last time, actual studies of ETS run about 80% against there being any statistical harm done by ETS to an otherwise normal healthy human being.

[Alter Kaker]

It started out with 3,000, then jumped to 50,000, and then hit it's nadir of 340,000

What are you talking about? Where does the 340,000 figure come from? Also, using fancy-sounding words incorrectly just makes you look like a fool. Your use of the word "nadir" is opposite to its corrent meaning.

Best,

Alter

[Just another Joe]

340,000 is the estimate by the CDC of deaths by exposure to ETS. THAT'S where your figure of 400,000 smoking related deaths comes from.

I used the term "nadir" exactly the way I wanted to.
The CDC hit a low point when it so extravagantly used estimates to put such a high figure on ETS related deaths. It went against the prevailing science of the day, and even to today.

[TASMANIANRED]

Murder is a case apart....You put forth a
straw argument...


When it comes to death, it is one to a customer...no exceptions.

All the rest is just playing with statistics...

[Alter Kaker]

340,000 is the estimate by the CDC of deaths by exposure to ETS.

Citation?

I used the term "nadir" exactly the way I wanted to.

You may have intended to use it incorrectly, but you still used it incorrectly. In your sentence, nadir clearly referred to the number total, not to the CDC. You can try to come up with whatever nonsense you want to try to justify your mistake. I still say you look like a silly poseur when you try to use $10 words you couldn't use correctly if your life depended on it.

[Alter Kaker]

Murder is a case apart....You put forth a straw argument...

No it isn't. This is directly applicable to the issue at hand.

Either you believe that premature death is a big deal or you don't. I happen to believe -- and centuries of legal, philosophical and theological precedent happen to agree with me -- that premature death is kind of important.

If you don't, you don't. But you have to consider the logical consequences of that decision.

[Just another Joe]

You can try to come up with whatever nonsense you want to try to justify your mistake. I still say you look like a silly poseur when you try to use $10 words you couldn't use correctly if your life depended on it.

And you can try to change the subject all you like. It still doesn't fly that over 300,000 people are killed by ETS every year.

citation?

Here is the table the CDC puts up immediately after talking about ETS. There is a seperate category for lung cancer from smoking. As I understand from the context the rest is ETS related.
AND the CDC based this table, in part, on the debunked EPA study the federal courts said the EPA didn't have to meet epidemiological standards on.

Disease	Men	Women	Overall
Cancers
Lung	81,179	35,741	116,920
Lung from ETS	1,055	1,945	3,000
Other	21,659	9,743	31,402
Total	103,893	47,429	151,322
Cardiovascular Diseases
Hypertension	3,233	2,151	5,450
Heart Disease	88,644	45,591	134,235
Stroke	14,978	8,303	23,281
Other	11,682	5,172	16,854
Total	118,603	61,117	179,820
Respiratory Diseases
Pneumonia	11,292	7,881	19,173
Bronchitis/ Emphysema	9,234	5,541	14,865
Chronic Airway Obstruction	30,385	18,579	48,982
Other	787	668	1,455
Total	51,788	32,689	84,475
Diseases Among Infants	1,006	705	1,711
Burn Deaths	863	499	1,362
All Causes	276,153	142,537	418,690

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/mortali.htm

[Alter Kaker]

Your citation says nothing about 340,000 deaths related to ETS. Where does that 340,000 figure come from? I've never seen it before.

[Just another Joe]

all causes - 418,690 - in a table immediately after a statement about ETS.
Lung cancer from smoking, stated specifically, 116,920.

301,770 - the result of subtracting 116,920 from 418,690.
I'm off by 38,230 working from memory, sue me.

[TASMANIANRED]

Using murder is nothing but a straw argument...

Murder by definition is the willful taking of another's life.

You have a personal Axe to grind.

The most dangerous environment for life in the US is in the uterus of a liberal woman...

You are having a cow about 300-400k annual deaths to people mostly over 55 and never take into consideration the 1.2M deaths to healthy innocents.

Selective outrage over premature deaths..

[TASMANIANRED]

Tobacco products may not be all that critical to the US economy now but for 2 Centuries the US Tobacco was the cash crop.

Had it not been for the cash from Tobacco, The Virginia Plantations and much of the south would not have survived.