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.
Really?
Ever been the victim of discrimation?
I have.
I have 3 kids, wife, mortgage.
I worked at a company for 16 years. They brought in 2 younger guys, to oversee my department, who told me their first week that I was being let go because I was over 40.
I am currently suing them.
I took me months to find another position. My family suffered because of this.
And you feel they have the right to do that?
Thank you!
Thank you!
What does seat belt laws have to do with this? Do you have something morally against them?
You know "darn" well that's not the point he was trying to make.
Don't use a diversion to avoid the issue.. That's a Liberal ploy
The point was Control..
Here is "the seat belt example:
Voluntary seatbelt use encouraged..
Seat belt laws passed.. only in conjunction with normal traffic stops..
Traffic stops made solely on basis of seat belt use..
Road blocks and "safety inspections" for the express purpose of checking for seat belt use, replete with tickets/fines for non-compliance..
This is the procedure..
It can be applied to smoking as well...
Beginning with the ban on smoking on airlines.. international flights first, then national..
Bans in government facilities.. National, then state, then local.. ( extreme examples, ban of smoking within city limits, exist today. No smoking even outside, if within city limits. )
Bans in "public places".. Malls, etc.. (local, county ordinances)
Bans in restaurants.. then bars..
Some bans exist on smoking in one's own car..and in one's own home..
What do you have against personal freedom?
Do you have something morally against it?
Or is it your political philosophy ?
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.
It is used to achieve Socialism in a society indoctrinated by Liberal thought
It is the same method being used the the Gun Control Lobbies in this country..
If one were to look into many other societal restrictions of the day, one would find numerous other examples of how individual rights and freedoms are being corrupted, personal responsibility is being abdicated, and lifelong governmental control is being realized by those that want nothing less than total control of "the masses"..
They call themselves proletariat but they are worse than the bourgious they blame and denigrate in their calculated seizure of power..
Have I said I smoked?
You assume too much, "grasshopper"...
"I am a smoker. I understand and totally agree about the ban against smoking in public places and adjusted very easily to not smoking in restaurants and work etc.
The recent firing of smokers who indulge on their own time is a different matter, however."
Are you really posting on your first day as part of this board in favor of government confiscation of the use of private property, and against a private employer being able to chose who to hire/fire? Why did you join FR?
"As a non-smoker, this has little bearing on me, personally."
Are you a private property owner? If so, it has everything to do with you.
The real problem is that you failed to call the police to arrest the criminal that held the gun to your head and forced you to enter that "SMALL PIZZA PLACE". Why did you fail to do your civic duty and have the criminal arrested?
Private business owners should be able to decide if they want a smoke-free establishment or not. It's the proprietor's decision whether such a policy would be a positive or a negative for their establishment.
I personally would choose to spend my dollars in a restaurant that prohibits smoking. My guess is that many restaurants would go smoke-free in order to appear family-friendly, while most bars would continue to allow smoking.
"I don't like gov't intrusion either, but sometimes it is for a good reason."
Either you need to change your profile, or you need to study the power of market forces.
"You smokers are such martyrs. You have a problem with smoke free airline flights? Guess what, I don't want to be sealed in an airtight can with you.
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."
I agree, that's the way it should be. unfortunately there are anti-smoker zealots out there who being paid big bucks to convince non-smokers (not people like you) and even smokers that it is better to let the government handle it because the anti-smokers know better than the poor misinformed sheeple.
The only mis (rather dis) information regarding smoking bans is coming out of them.............
I hate washing windows, I really do - but it is a necessary part of life, whether one smokes or not.
I'm sorry, you mis interpretted my comment...........I was siding with you. I respect the right of a landlord to not wish to rent to smokers and I am the type of person that respects that, and would therefore not wish to rent from someone who would prefer not having smokers, or even states they do not want smoking tenants.
I would ask the landlord if they had a problem with smokers, and I in fact did ask the last time I rented an apartment. And that was nearly 15 years ago.
In locations, such as California, New York, Delaware, Maine that is no longer permitted. Even the "cigar bars" have been forced to go non-smoking. heck in Delaware even tobacco shops have to be non-smoking.
I know exactly what you are saying - I am just afraid of some of the ways it can be misused.
Your point very well said. Control the people through little acts of "we know what's best for you" first, and the rest of their socialist agenda will fall into place. I am amazed at how many people cannot see the hidden agenda coming. I suppose they'll understand when they get pulled over and are asked to "show me your papers!"
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.