Posted on 02/14/2005 5:26:50 AM PST by SheLion
HALLOCK, Minn. - On Dec. 18, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition at the Alerus Center. After listening to the panel members and researching both sides of the issues, and having lived in California when the smoking ban was instituted there, I strongly urge the Grand Forks City Council and other agencies to take no action on the issue at this time, except to research the facts on both sides.
Why? First, the health issue is seriously questionable. As the American Council on Science and Health has put it, "the role of environmental tobacco smoke in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial."
The term that comes to my mind is "comparative risk." That is, if you were to compare the risk of secondhand smoke to other risks found in homes and workplaces, you'd find little real difference, especially if those other risks were subject to the same scrutiny that secondhand smoke has endured.
Second, the economic issue is distorted, and our area cannot afford the risk that the same thing that happened in California will happen here. As someone who lived through California's non-smoking program, let me lend some insight as to its real effect.
The smoking ban in California was a failure. For one thing, it was accomplished through lies, exaggeration and bureaucratic gamesmanship. The lies included the health risks (for example, the statement that 50,000 people die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke) and false representations of health studies (check the World Health Organization and other groups on this).
The distortions included what the estimated economic impact would be on all workplaces. Minimal, the activists said. The reality proved different. The loss in productivity (from smokers having to leave the workplace to smoke) and jobs (from scores of restaurants and bars closing and other businesses moving) was substantial.
If you are not traveling, then bars and restaurants are a luxury. They're an activity on which customers choose to spend their discretionary dollars.
As the Bismarck Tribune pointed out in its editorial against smoking bans, smoking and food go together. So when restaurants force smokers out into the area's cold weather, those smokers do not go out to eat. They stay home and keep an equal number of non-smokers with them.
The result is a 40 percent to 60 percent loss in sales for bars and restaurants with bars. In California, this meant the closing of almost all non-chain restaurants and bars six months to three years after a smoking ban. And that was in a state where the weather does not deter smoking outside; you can expect a greater impact here.
In addition, many smokers are older or retired people, and pushing them outside in weather that lately has been dangerously cold probably would create higher health costs than would the status quo.
The well-financed special interests against the legal activity of smoking will coerce legislators into making a major mistake. Please let your representatives know that they should have all the facts before acting.
Troy is former economic development director of the Kittson County (Minn.) Office of Economic Development.
I can say nothing les than OH WOW!!!!!!!!!!
I could expound on so many of your points - but I am just going to leave them as is at this time. They speak volumes as is.
Well done.
BA DA BING.
It never ceases to amaze me how many folks posting on a conservative forum are so in favor of nany-state government restrictions........and not just on smoking.
Welcome aboard Garnet - be prepared to get grilled a bit from those not familiar with you that have been around here a while.....but there are enough of us here who know you from elsewhere, so holler if need be!
Thanks!!!
I wish I had said that.
It all comes back to the desire for the nanny state to take care of them. If the nanny state says that air coming out of the vent on the airplane is fresh air, heck!, it's fresh air - no matter if it stinks like hell and burns your eyes!
But if you asked a anti-smoking nazi why their eyes were so red after a flight, they'd never connect it to the filth pouring out of the vents.
If I go into a furniture store I have an instant headache. The fabric guard and the preservatives they use on new furniture make me sick, as do strong colognes and perfumes, but I've never thought about filing suit for my own selfish reasons.
Live and let live.
Yes, of course.
If you have a right to quit a job, then an employer has the right to make you quit. Private property is not the government; it does not owe "equal" treatment to anybody.
This same principle applies to the smoking-ban debate. The real issue here has nothing to do with "health" or "economic effects," or any of that blather. The real issue is the rights of property owners. If I own a piece of property, it is up to me -- and ME ONLY -- to determine what legal activities may take place on that property.
There's nothing "public" about any private property, no matter how successful the left has been at pulling the wool over Americans' eyes for the past half-century. And, yes, that wool-pulling includes many aspects of the Civil Rights Act.
It's disturbing to see that so many conservatives have bought into the entitlement mentality -- "entitled" to a smoke-free environment in a privately owned restaurant, "entitled" to not being fired by a private employer, etc. This place is still called Free Republic, right?
To call it a "slippery slope" isn't even accurate anymore; clearly, the left has won this particular battle in the war to instill socialism in the American psyche.
No one held a gun to your head to make you eat there. But you advocate the government holding a "gun" (law) to my head to forbid me to engage in a legal activity.
If you don't like smoke, don't go where there are smokers. It's really very simple. But when you decide that because you don't like smoke, others shouldn't be allowed to smoke, then you've crossed a line from believing in freedom for everyone to believing in freedom only for those who think like you..
Hi,
Thanks a lot. I should have paid more attention to this site sooner. My post was really an opinion/editorial/story I wrote last week, but it seemed so appropriate with the comments made about smoke free planes that I couldn't resist including it. I jumped the gun with it a little, because it will be published tomorrow on Terry's Tidbits at http://www.terrystidbits.com/
That's an understatement.
It is beyond my comprehensive ablities, which are none too shabby, to understand how any right thinking person can and will gladly accept the idea that a private business is in someway public property.
We need more people who understand the concept of property rights vs. selfish interests.
So employers, by this logic. can go back to "sweat-shop" mentality? Can bosses fondle (and worse) female employees? Smack employees around? Refuse to pay them after they performed their duties? Why not? According to you they can do it ... why stop at that ... employee wants to quit, knows secrets he can use at a competitor ... kill him.
I'll be watching for your posts. You make a lot of sense.
And like Gabz said, if you get in a bind with the nanny staters, just holler. We've got a LOT of experience with them.
It's a simple premise to some, but not to others. There are actually people who believe they have the right to enter any private establishment and not be offended by the toabcco smoke of others. These people are of the mind set that they should be able to enter ANY establishment at ANY time and never be offended by tobacco smoke........even in places they would never dream of setting foot into to begin with.
From my many years of experience with this particular issue I have come to understand that those that like government intrusion regarding smoking bans are also in favor of gun control and alcohol prohibition.
Ban addicts are ban addicts and they don't stop at smoking.
The things you mentioned are prohibited by laws other than employer-employee relationships.
so is discrimation! It's a FEDERAL crime ... not an employer-employee infraction.
There are probably a bunch of folks I missed pinging to this - but you all will take care of it for me, I'm sure!!!
I made a comment in another post on this thread about the antis not stopping with smoking - sominthing all of us have been say forever.
But that comment of mine made me think of something, something we should all remember......and reinforce and pound on.
RWJF started with smokers, then went to guns, and now alcohol. The push behind smoking bans anywhere is partially financed by RWJF.........anyone who supports the smoking bans is de facto supporting gun grabbing and alcohol restriction/prohibition.
Let's remember to remind anyone supporting government smoking bans they are also supporting gun control and prohibition. None of which are exactly conservative principles.......
An interesting little tidbit of info. BUSINESSES HAD BETTER BEWARE!
Calm down, FRiend - we talked about this earlier.
You're mixing apples and oranges again.
And something SheLion and I, and others, have been talking about for YEARS.
Unfortunatley there is a large contigent here on FR that choose to believe the propaganda that is spewed by the paid professional anti-smokers, as opposed to information provided by establishments hurt by the bans.
I've heard all the nonsense that any place going out of business after a smoking ban was just using that as an excuse because they were going under anyway. That hardly works for an establishment that was in business for 50 years. Or another that had been in business for 25 years.
So years from now, while you are struggling to hike up a flight of stairs, I'l still be running up two at a time. I'll still have my youthful glow while you'll be sucking on an oxygen bottle.
__________________________________________________________
Be careful! You may eat those words because the Man upstairs may have something else in mind for you.
What incredible arrogance.
Although I personally had no real problem going into an establishment and not being able to smoke, I see your point ... where does it end?
I have to admit, I don't like, as a smoker, being the pariah of the moment. With my luck, I'd quit smoking, gain weight and suddenly fat people would become the hated and hunted.
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.