Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Cancer of the Anti-smoking Puritans
NewsMax.com ^ | Nov. 7, 2002 | Barrett Kalellis

Posted on 11/07/2002 2:04:46 PM PST by prman

Two decades ago, before it became fashionable to detest tobacco products, anti-smoking zealots used to argue that their interest in banning smoking only extended to prohibiting the practice on plane flights. This was only reasonable, they argued, because aircraft ventilation systems had no way to filter smoke-tainted air, and non-smokers had no recourse if they didn't want to inhale it.

This proposed restriction was presented to the public as the outer limits on curtailing people's freedom to enjoy smoking. But with the stealth that guile brings, the long march to stamp out smoking everywhere was under way. Buoyed by the relentless drumbeat of sympathetic media propaganda and vested interests in the health care industry, the wheels of disapprobation ground inexorably finer by a thorough demonizing of tobacco producers and users.

The overt demonology became political correctness, leading corporate executives, facility managers and assorted government functionaries to curtail smoking in the workplace. Everyone has seen the sorry spectacle of huddled groups of beleaguered smokers, furtively sneaking puffs outside their workplaces in the cold and damp.

Demagogues like California Congressman Henry Waxman and Savonarola-like activist John Banzhaf have called for Draconian tobacco regulation far and wide, encouraging tort lawyers across the country to belly up to the bar and file whatever personal injury or class action lawsuit will allow them to pick the pockets of tobacco companies.

Not to be outdone, state and local politicians in league with anti-smoking groups push ballot measures in numerous states and municipalities that either increase already onerous tobacco taxes or outlaw smoking in various public areas and workplaces.

Following similar measures in California and Delaware, Michael R. Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, is now pressuring New York's City Council to ban smoking outright in bars and restaurants in all five boroughs. Since 1995, smoking has been prohibited in city office buildings and in restaurants seating more than 35 customers. The new proposed restriction would affect an additional 13,000 establishments.

This heavy-handed coercion is all done under the banner of health care advocacy, which, in the minds of political animals, always seems to trump the rights of individuals to pursue their own pleasures, unless the lawmakers' own pockets are at stake. The recent defeat of Michigan's Proposal 4 ballot initiative, which would have redistributed tobacco settlement monies to private health care organizations, was heartily cheered by state politicos, since they were being used to fund other projects.

This long-running anti-smoking jihad is not unlike the Zeitgeist demonizing the liquor industry that brought about Prohibition in 1920. In the similar attempt to solve all sorts of social problems, proponents argued that by reducing the consumption of alcohol, crime would decrease, health and hygiene would improve and the tax burden of building prisons would be lifted.

As time would show, the Noble Experiment was a miserable failure. In the long run, alcohol consumption actually increased, organized crime and corruption got a foothold, an underground economy was born and the touted health benefits were not realized.

There is no question that heavy long-term smoking represents a health hazard to the smoker, as does habitual alcohol consumption for the heavy drinker. And while some argue that "second-hand smoke" might jeopardize the health of people in close proximity to smokers, over-consumption of alcohol certainly modifies the public and private behavior of drinkers, often to the detriment or peril of those around them.

The question remains: Should government regulate smoking as it tried to do with alcoholic beverage production and consumption? Have smokers no rights? Should a man who risks his investment in a bar or restaurant be put at an economic disadvantage because he is proscribed from allowing smoking in his place of business? Hasn't he the right to establish his own rules and policies to attract the customers he wants? After all, those who are offended by tobacco smoke also have the right not to patronize his restaurant.

The anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol crusades are cut from the same cloth. Today, anti-smoking forces are mercilessly metastasizing to kill off the last redoubts that remain for those who might enjoy a postprandial cigarette, cigar or pipe.

This is not only wrong; it is, as Prohibition showed, against nature. People must be free to choose – even if it means their own poison. The more intense the regulation, the more potent tobacco becomes as people find other sources to pursue their pleasure.

The spreading cancer of the anti-smoking Puritans should be of concern to free men everywhere. As economist Ludwig von Mises cautioned, "Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."

Barrett Kalellis is a columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: pufflist; smoking; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-188 last
To: lewislynn

If I pass an ordinance that effectively reduces your income by 25%, would it make any difference to you what the ordinance was intended for?


181 posted on 12/13/2006 7:27:46 PM PST by Ken Garrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA

There is tons of proof that diesel exhaust is harmful to the general public more so than Passive cigarette Smoke. Why aren't you people that are so concerned about health issues pushing to have diesel engines banned from your cities?


182 posted on 12/13/2006 7:27:48 PM PST by Ken Garrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

As a matter of fact, many do come to my restaurant to have a pleasant dining experience, which includes a smoke after dinner. If my city imposes a smoking ban, like the neighboring city did, I can expect the same results their restaurants experienced. Many of them closed down due to loss of revenue.


183 posted on 12/13/2006 7:27:59 PM PST by Ken Garrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Ken Garrett
As a matter of fact, many do come to my restaurant to have a pleasant dining experience, which includes a smoke after dinner. If my city imposes a smoking ban, like the neighboring city did, I can expect the same results their restaurants experienced. Many of them closed down due to loss of revenue.

I live in California. If you want a table you'll have to wait...but not for someone to finish their cigarette.

If your customers decide your food is not worth going without a cigarette for 45 minutes or an hour, or they decide they'd rather cower at home than risk going without a cigarette then you have a customer problem...Open a private cigarette lounge instead.

This article is over 2 yrs old, how's the anti, anti-smoking battle going for you?

184 posted on 12/13/2006 7:40:24 PM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Ken Garrett
As a matter of fact, many do come to my restaurant to have a pleasant dining experience, which includes a smoke after dinner.

Encouraging your customers to stay and have a smoke after dinner while other paying customers are waiting for a table doesn't sound like a good business plan.

185 posted on 12/13/2006 11:34:08 PM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Q: You have plenty of non-smoking places to go. Why is it so abhorrent to you that we might have a few places to go?

A: I still remember when there was no place to go without smokers. One of the reasons there is a total ban movement is because the owners played only lip service to setting up non-smoking areas.

There is truth in that, but it doesn't answer the question. Unless you are looking at anti-smoking laws as punishment/revenge for past foot-dragging by some business owners.

186 posted on 12/14/2006 12:15:57 AM PST by buckleyfan (WFB, save us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
But the world is changing. Smoking was king in the fifties, now it is mostly relegated to the lower class.

You are so full of yourself.. How rude.

187 posted on 12/14/2006 12:36:34 AM PST by Texas Mom (Two places you're always welcome - church and Grandma's house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

Encouraging your customers to stay and have a smoke after dinner while other paying customers are waiting for a table doesn't sound like a good business plan.


How about having a dual system, one room completely separate, seperate cooling, heat, a/c and ventilation. I have such an establishment but, the anti-smoking zealots say that's not good enough. I say when they put up the money to reimburse me my $31,000 creating a friendly environment, then they can dictate to me as they write out the check.


188 posted on 12/17/2006 5:20:14 AM PST by Ken Garrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-188 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson