Sanctimonious Smoking Nanny

Denver Post ^ | January 10, 2005 | David Harsanyi

[aynrandy]

Hide your smokes and unhealthy contraband. The tyrants of wellbeing are back.

Apparently, the Denver City Council is never too busy to intercede with some good old-fashioned social engineering. And soon enough, smoking in restaurants and bars will be banned.

It's enough to make a holier-than-thou politician - with pristine pink lungs - shriek with delight.

Jeanne Faatz, at this point, is the lone voice of reason on the council. She still believes in trivial things like free enterprise and property rights.

She's sort of an outsider. And although she won't admit it on record, I'm certain the other council members put shaving cream in her shoes, lock her out of meetings and blow spitballs at her.

Don't misunderstand me. Faatz hates smoking. She detests the habit so strongly that she can't stop complaining about it - it causes her to be hoarse and sneeze and makes her stomach coil. She hates being put in this position, protecting smokers.

But Faatz, in contrast to the missionaries of healthful living, appreciates that the ban is not a smoking issue but a matter of freedom.

Faatz loathes sitting next to a smoker in a restaurant. Who doesn't? But she does something extremely peculiar: She gets up, walks out and finds an establishment where she doesn't have to.

"My decision comes from the fact that you have private ownership in business, and they should have the right to target whatever customers they feel the marketplace will give them," she explains. "If, indeed, nobody frequented a smoking establishment, I say, 'Right on, the marketplace has spoken."'

Faatz believes choices and decisions are key in a free society. It's expedient to say, "Yuck, I don't like smoke." But ask yourself this: Do you think government should dictate how a person runs a business? What about customers? Should they be allowed to decide whether they want an all-smoking restaurant or a nonsmoking restaurant?

What if the Denver City Council concluded that cellphones at work should be banned because they have been linked to brain tumors?

Are there justifiable reasons for intervention? Sure. If there is contaminated food or other hidden health issues, government must protect citizens. Full disclosure is imperative. But when the sign in front of a steakhouse reads "smoking allowed," adults should be able to make their own decisions.

Besides, a steady diet of steaks wrapped with bacon is probably apt to kill you a lot faster than secondhand smoke.

We all know what's next. "What about those unfortunate, powerless, coughing employees?" The logical answer given by Faatz is simply that "it is a person's choice where they work." Who is forcing you to work in a smoke-filled diner?

But for the moment, let's advance the argument further: If everyone with a risky job should be protected from all hazards, where would we end up?

You realize the stress a stockbroker goes through? What about the stress a cop experiences? Yes, stress kills far more people than the wildly overstated threat of secondhand smoke. And who can deny the dangers of being a bike messenger, a cabbie or a firefighter?

Smoke Free Denver, another group of sanctimonious nanny types, wants to sabotage freedom for smokers and property owners "to protect the health of Denver residents, workers and visitors from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke."

Well, what about the claims of tens of thousands of deaths due to secondhand smoke?

It's junk science. The University of Chicago's Dr. John Bailar, a critic of the tobacco industry, has produced a detailed analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine debunking the supposed link between secondhand smoke and heart disease. His study is one of many.

But if you don't believe them, there are long lists of smoke-free establishments for you to go to. Enjoy.

David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

[Stevieboy]

I had my reply all figured out before even reading the article, but then, the writer said it for me:

But Faatz, in contrast to the missionaries of healthful living, appreciates that the ban is not a smoking issue but a matter of freedom.

[Onelifetogive]

And soon enough, smoking in restaurants and bars will be banned.

If they would just ban the consumption of alcohol in bars as well, I could take my kids...

[-YYZ-]

The anti-smoking nazis up here in Ontario, Canada, are at least honest and have admitted that their complete ban of smoking in "public" places with no provision for separately ventilated smoking rooms has nothing to do with concern over the effects of second hand smoke. They've actually stated that their desire is to make smoking as inconvenient as possible so as to encourage smokers to quit. IMHO that's not their place, even with the socialized medical care we have here. Actuarial/economic studies have shown that smokers are NOT an overall drain on the public purse with the level of taxation on cigarettes that we have here.

ps I'm working on quitting, but I still think the law should at the very least make some provision for separately ventilated smoking rooms if a business owner wants to provide them. It IS their business, after all.

[Mogger]

It's about time.

What gives smokers the idea they have the right to cause the rest of us to inhale their stench?

Stand outside... WAY away from the door.

[monday]

"If they would just ban the consumption of alcohol in bars as well, I could take my kids..."

and serve only green salads, vegetables, tofu, and other healthy foods in restaurants.... utopia!!!!! </sarcasm

[Just another Joe]

What gives smokers the idea they have the right to cause the rest of us to inhale their stench?

It is not a right. It's a liberty granted by the property owner.

What gives you the idea that you can usurp the right of a property owner?

[Gabz]

What gives you the right to dictate the clientele of a private business..........once you walk into his establishment, it's his air, not yours.

[Gabz]

WOW!!! and actual voice of reason.

Of course it didn't take the resident FR nico-gnatzies to come out of the woodwork.

[mysterio]

Stay out of establishments that permit smoking. Vote with your feet. But don't expect to be allowed to dictate to a property owner what he or she can do on their own property on the off chance that you might show up there.

[annyokie]

LOL I was going to ping you to this article.

[monday]

"What gives smokers the idea they have the right to cause the rest of us to inhale their stench?"

I think we should ban French and Germans from restaurants and bars as well, on the grounds they stink? What gives them the right to cause the rest of us to inhale their stench?

... they really do stink. Especially when they go on vacation. I am not making this up.... and don't say they can't help it. Soap and deodorant work just as well on them as on anyone else. They just choose not to use it.

While we are at it. I have smelled some truly offensive women whose perfume arrives five minutes before they do. I say we ban them as well.

Put smell checkers at the entry to every bar and restaurant. Of course due to the misery and hardship of their jobs, they should be the most highly paid of any of the establishments employees. That would be a horrible job. It would be worth it to keep all the smelly riff raff out though.

I think we need a constitutional amendment that gives every American the 'Right to not be Offended by the Smell of Others'.

It could be added to the Bill of Rights. What do you say?

[Gabz]

The anti-smoker gnatzies in Delaware took it even further. They claimed one of the reasons for the ban was to make smoking appear socially unacceptable to children to cut down on teen smoking. The problem is that you must be 21 to enter a bar in Delaware and the legal age to purchase tobacco products is 18. So the question is, how does banning smoking in the local tavern have any impact of keeping kids from seeing adults smoke?

[Annie03]

ping

[Annie03]

lol

[exnavychick]

It didn't take long to run off the lone soul who stuck his nose in with a way off base OPINION! LOL

When are these folks gonna catch on that it's not their rights being violated by smoking, but our rights being violated by their attempts to ban it?

Geesh.

P.S. Thanks for the ping. I wonder if anyone else is gonna show up and end up banging their heads against the wall of reality? I think the word might be getting around, lol.

[Allegra]

Stand outside... WAY away from the door.

If it's my establishment and I say smoking is OK, perhaps it's you who should be standing outside, WAY away from the door.

[WildTurkey]

It is not a right. It's a liberty granted by the property owner. What gives you the idea that you can usurp the right of a property owner?

Uh, when he applies for the LICENSE to operate a restuarant he is agreeing to abide by the local ordinances. Why don't you fight the licensing process. You would be on firmer ground.

[labowski]

Canada bump!

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

-The Trees by Rush

[labowski]

Canada bump!

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

The Trees- Rush