Replies

Here's a good letter to send to any council or other governmental agency considering a sweeping smoking ban. I'd give credit if I could recall who wrote it--it might even have been me, but it was a long time ago.

Honorable Council Member:

If you didn't believe this effort was right, we wouldn't be discussing this issue, so I'm not going to try to show you how you've been fooled by the hype, hysteria and crisis mentality promulgated by special interests in our society. Neither will I argue the health risks of smoking or of secondary smoke. I am, though, going to appeal to the fairness and justice that has been part of the "American way" since our country was founded.

There may be some of you whose minds are not already made up and it is to these brave souls who dare to independently examine the reality and consequences of that reality that this plea is addressed.

I'm sure you've been supplied with a mountain of slick documentation, statistics, figures and propaganda by the paid professional proponents of this ban. You are not being given information as if you were rational decision makers Look closely at the style and language of the testimonies and information packets you receive from those in favor of these smoking bans: I'm sure you'll note that they are packages of marketing and indoctrination material rather than simple statements of fact. These people with the hundreds of millions of dollars of funding they are now receiving are professional lobbyists as skilled at political manipulation as the tobacco industry was 30 years ago. Although I am a well-educated professional business person, I can't begin to match their funding or their experience in this matter. All I have to offer is the truth as I see it and a desire to return to the Constitutional principles in which I believe.

The average non-smoker doesn't see the undercurrent of cultish fanaticism in the anti-smoking movement, and is therefore easily swayed by the use of emotion-laden terms such as "saving the children" even when, as in the case of bars, children are not involved. The fanatic fringe has claimed the right to represent millions of nonsmokers who would largely disagree with their extremism if consulted. Aided by the popular press, zealots have changed the very foundation of the doctrines that have made us the country we are with a creeping incrementalism invisible to the average person.

This issue has been framed by the anti-smoking activists as a battle between Good (government, anti-smokers, charities, etc.) and Evil (Big Tobacco and its lackeys, where lackeys are defined as anyone who questions the anti-smokers), or as a fight for rights (non-smokers' rights vs smokers' rights), but neither is accurate. The rights in danger here are those of private property and equal treatment we are all guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Little by little, government--at all levels-- has taken away some of our most cherished freedoms.

Respect for the freedoms of all individuals is one of the highest values in our society. But increasingly, government policy is being driven by public health officials and activists who don't see it that way. Health for the "public good" is their highest value, and they're willing to erode freedom to advance it. However, promoting the "public good" has been the rallying cry of nearly every king, dictator, and tyrant in history, and this is no exception. James Madison warned that "there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations" and Jefferson warned us about "men of zeal with good intentions." Here we have both and the warnings are being ignored.

According to the view of the public health activists, we are not free individuals capable of independent choice. To ensure their view of public health requires governmental and societal coercion to manipulate behavior and engineer society to their liking. Banning smoking in bars and workplaces even where everyone consents to smoking, has nothing to do with making workers safe. It's about making it inconvenient for smokers to indulge, thus pushing them toward changing their behaviour, and punishing them if they're unwilling to make that change.

In their zeal to make this a smoke-free society, activists use the fear of secondhand smoke as a powerful weapon in their battle against smoking itself. In 1975, Sir George Godber, British delegate to the World Health Organization, and anti-smoker activist even then, presented to WHO his blueprint for changing individual behavior by changing social attitudes. Of smoking, he said: "..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, esp.ecially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS." When asked by a reporter why he had exaggerated the risks of secondary smoke, instead of denying that exaggeration C. Everett Koop is quoted as saying he had to be "forceful in warning of the ETS threat in order to win the public's attention."

This creates an "us against them" atmosphere wherein each side relies on stereotyped views of the other, and distrust, disrespect, and ad hominem attacks are common. When the time comes for discussion, there is more name-calling and anger than insightful and constructive interaction. Non-smokers have been led to believe that smokers want to smoke anywhere and everywhere and that Big Tobacco is behind every smoker's dissension. Neither is true.

When I say "let the proprietor make his own smoking policy determined by his clientele," the other side will respond with one of two things: "What if I want to bring buckets of cow manure into the restaurant?" (a quote from Regina Carlson of NJ GASP during a debate with a smoking citizen on CN8 TV in April), or "What if the proprietor wants to ignore other health department rules?"

Of course, they are both specious arguments, even though they push those emotional buttons mentioned previously. My answer to the first is: "If YOU own a restaurant and want to feature buckets of cow manure beside each table, that suits me fine. I am not required to enter your establishment and I won't, but I'll fight for your right to have it." To the second I'd ask only which of those rules could be broken with the expectation of increased business? Bad meat? Roach infestation?

Another common response is "Why should anyone have to work in toxic waste." Aside from the fact that it has been proven that workers in smoking-permitted establishments are exposed to only 6 cigarettes a year, and even OSHA has said "it would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking" that its standards would be exceeded, in this country and most others, no one HAS to work anywhere he or she doesn't want to work. Many workers also smoke; why should they be denied the opportunity to work in a smoker-friendly place, especially if they DO smoke?

Americans are the most creative, most inventive people on earth, and there is NO problem we cannot solve to the benefit of all if we're given a chance. Take Big Tobacco and Big Anti-Tobacco completely out of the equation and see what you have left. You have some people who like smoking, some people who hate smoking, and a huge majority who don't care much one way or the other as long as they're not forced to be in smoky places with substandard ventilation, and they, too, want a choice. Why can't we--the most creative, most inventive people on earth--find a solution that is fair to everyone and gives everyone a choice? (I don't work for Big Tobacco and don't care what their position is on any of these issues. Big Tobacco sold smokers out in their sweet deal with the Attorneys General when they agreed to force current smokers to foot the entire bill for the industry's own past misdeeds.)

New Jersey has a cigarette butt problem on their beaches. They claim their beach cleaning machines won't pick up the butts. Instead of the extremists' solution of "Ban Smoking on the Beach," why not tell the manufacturer of the beach cleaning machines to get busy and figure out how to pick up ALL the litter or they'll be replaced by someone who will? Is it really reasonable to believe that this problem has proven insurmountable for a culture that can create artificial hearts and subatomic supercolliders? Give entrepreneurism a chance.

In a municipality with 25% of its citizens who smoke, and each of that 25% having at least some family members and friends who don't smoke and don't care, instead of an extremist regulation shutting out that entire portion of the population, wouldn't the reasonable solution be to allow SOME restaurants, bars, etc., (private businesses) to be smoker-friendly, SOME to be smokefree, and SOME to have separate sections? Or at least to set a standard that covers everything fairly (cooking fumes as well as cigarette smoke) and require ventilation that keeps the levels of pollutants to that standard? The only reason not to do so is to punish the miscreants who refuse to bow to the public health extremists or, more insidiously, to create a social standard that is designed to engineer "desirable" behavior among the citizens without their consent to such manipulation.

Civil society should promote the dignity of each individual. Can you seriously say the anti-smoker movement does that when smokers are treated as second-class citizens and pariahs? When society is left to the voluntary interaction of individuals, we call that liberty. When society is dominated by government, we call that tyranny. When and why and to what extent is it reasonable for government to intrude into personal behavior in public policy? Only when all other avenues have been exhausted.

We have not even begun to exhaust other avenues.

Thank you for your time.

Name, address

Enclosed is information you may not be aware exists. If you take just a few minutes to look it over you may find yourself much better able to evaluate the slick propaganda you've received concerning this issue.