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.
No matter how much you may want it, the world will never be smoke-free. You could ban tobacco completely, but you will only succeed in making criminals and terrorists rich and corrupting those responsible for enforcing the prohibition. Just like what happened during the 1920's with alcohol and like what is happening now with drugs.
Some people are not smart enough to realize it and never will be unfortunately. Cause and effect are lost on them. Might as well debate a post.
Being an X-Travel Agent, I can tell you that the filters on planes are even dirtier today then what they ever were when planes had smoking sections. Since there is no smoking, the airlines are cutting back on the air used to save on fuel. Makes no sense to me. Everyone is still getting sick on planes.
Everyone has seen the sorry spectacle of huddled groups of beleaguered smokers, furtively sneaking puffs outside their workplaces in the cold and damp.
When smokers were allowed to smoke at their desk, they had no need to take breaks. Maybe a trip to the powder room once-in-awhile. But now the anti-smokers want the smokers to be "25 feet from the building." But this isn't even enough for the anti-smoker. Now they are bitching because smokers are "outside" taking breaks. Well, anti-smokers, why don't you go with them and stretch your legs?
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.
Well said! And Joe Cherner in New York City, while enjoying his gay lifestyle, is pushing for the removal of smokers everywhere.
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.
Yes! They are taxing the smokers to high heaven but do not want them to SMOKE anywhere. They can't have both. If smoking is THAT dangerous, why don't they just ban the damn stuff. But oh no! They would lose all that M O N E Y!
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.
And guess what: it's putting restaurants all across America out of business! Is this what we really want in the economy that we have now?
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.
The Tobacco Settlement money is being paid 100% by smokers who pay taxes on cigarettes. Not Big Tobacco and NOT the Government! This money was supposed to go for Tobacco Education and to pay for any sick smoker on welfare SHOULD there be any, but oh no! The state is spending this wind fall on anything BUT!
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.
And while some argue that "second-hand smoke" might jeopardize the health of people in close proximity to smokers:
Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Second Hand Smoke
After all, those who are offended by tobacco smoke also have the right not to patronize his restaurant.
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.
AMEN!
Employees' health? ROFLMAO. They did lower their costs by decreasing ventilation. That's why the airlines went along in the first place. Now, diseases like flu, colds, TB, and other nasties are becoming common for frequent flyers and the pollution level is, at last count, 28% higher than when smoking was permitted.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
I think you're confused. You want the Democrat party. You know, the ones who want to regulate/prohibit everything they don't personally like. You know, the ones who believe majority rights trump individual rights. You know, the ones who believe all property is public property.
I am yet to see a conservative word spring from your keyboard on these smoking threads.
They did lower their costs by decreasing ventilation. That's why the airlines went along in the first place. Now, diseases like flu, colds, TB, and other nasties are becoming common for frequent flyers and the pollution level is, at last count, 28% higher than when smoking was permitted.
By caving to political agenda the airlines have done more harm than good to their businesses, industry, fliers and shareholders.
Furthermore, I speculate that had the government honored the 2nd Amendment and the airlines allowed passengers to carry concealed hand guns that the passengers with guns would have overpowered the terrorists on 9/11. Save for one critical point, the terrorists wouldn't have masterminded the strategy they did -- albeit with guns instead of box cutters -- because they would have calculated the high probability of failure due to righteous individuals with concealed guns as opposed to the disarmed sheeple they had to barely over power -- the only measurable resistance was on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania.
He brings in the irrelevant federal prohibition effort to confuse the issue.
For about 80 percent of the population.
Just did. He said that the government regulates the production, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages.
That's the nice thing about states rights. The state has a right to limit your being able to blow smoke in my face.
But the world is changing. Smoking was king in the fifties, now it is mostly relegated to the lower class.
I wished for smoke free planes - got it
I wished for smoke free office - got it
I wished for smoke free home - got it
I wished for smoke free restaurants - getting them I wished for smoke free bars - getting them :-)
And you don't believe in states' rights?
Lower class my lower cl ass.
I believe that individuals rights should trump states rights unless the individuals rights cause harm to another.
If you can prove, to my satisfaction, that ETS causes harm to the greater part of the public I will agree with you that the states should have the right to regulate where tobacco can be used.
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.