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

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?"

That's what I thought. You ask me for a citation and I attempt to give you one. I even apologise for a mistake I made.
I ask you for a citation and am ignored.
It's a one way street, eh?

All right, show me your PROOF that ETS causes harm to an otherwise normal healthy adult.
Until then, you can ask all you want. You will be ignored the same way you ignore others.

Ohio's law officially took effect on December 7th, but a lawsuit by a tavern owner's group forced the state to defer enforcing it until the rules were actually written in detail.

Some bars in the (southeast suburban Cleveland) area are enforcing it voluntarily. The one I work at will not until we are forced to. Our business is way up....since we are the ones respecting the wishes of our customers.

When "anti-smoking" initiatives pass, it proves that their are times that "democracy" does not equal liberty. It should be noted which of the two was the true cause of the Founders.

-Eric

During the 1990s, antismoking zealots pushed OSHA for a permissable exposure limit (PEL) on ETS. When OSHA pointed out that the "bad" chemicals in ETS already had PELs, and that normal ETS levels did not even come close to exceeding them, they not only quit pushing for a PEL but now attempt to deny the validity of the concept.

When discussing occupational chemical exposure, denying the validity of PEL is like trying to talk about electricity while denying the importance of voltage.

-Eric

Ohio's law officially took effect on December 7th, but a lawsuit by a tavern owner's group forced the state to defer enforcing it until the rules were actually written in detail.

Some bars in the (southeast suburban Cleveland) area are enforcing it voluntarily. The one I work at will not until we are forced to. Our business is way up....since we are the ones respecting the wishes of our customers.

When "anti-smoking" initiatives pass, it proves that their are times that "democracy" does not equal liberty. It should be noted which of the two was the true cause of the Founders.

Thanks for the ping! I am originally from Ohio, and I just can't believe what is happening there.

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.