BeachesBeavis & Buttheads..... They can't spell the article title right !
Posted on 06/24/2004 9:32:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Here we go again. First it was the health police in Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Malibu. Then the buttheads in Los Angeles County. Now it's the legislature, about to consider a bill to shield every sun worshipper statewide from the tribulations of beach smoking, and defend every grain of sand along the 1,100-mile coastline against cigarette litter.
One argument for the beach ban goes like this: Cigarette butts are a major source of litter. On cleanup days, volunteers say they pick up an average of more than 300,000 butts along the beach. If so, that's a powerful argument — but against littering, not against smoking. A ban on smoking is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because responsible smokers who properly discard their cigarette butts do not contribute to litter. It's under-inclusive because irresponsible non-smokers who improperly discard food wrappers and soda cans are major contributors to litter. By all means, let's keep the beaches clean. Anyone who flips a cigarette butt onto the sand may deserve to be fined. But let's reserve our ire, and our legal remedies, for those who actually do something wrong.
The second argument against beach smoking is that secondhand smoke, even a wisp on breezy days, is a health hazard. The short answer is that no evidence exists to support that bald assertion. Indeed, a substantial body of evidence cuts the other way. In 1996, the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, reported no increase in coronary heart disease associated with secondhand smoke "at work or in other settings." Two years later, the World Health Organization reported "no association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] and lung cancer." A 1999 editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded, "We still do not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether [ETS] increases the risk of coronary heart disease."
Then there's the granddaddy of all secondhand smoke studies: the landmark 1993 report by the Environmental Protection Agency declaring that ETS is a dangerous carcinogen that causes 3,000 deaths annually. Five years later, a federal judge lambasted EPA for "cherry picking" the data, excluding studies that "demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer," and withholding "significant portions of its findings and reasoning in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis."
More recently, in the May 2003 British Medical Journal, researchers found that passive smoke had no significant connection with heart-disease or lung-cancer death at any level of exposure at any time. Those results, stated the American Council on Science and Health, are "consistent" with studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So what?, you might argue. Maybe secondhand smoke doesn't kill people, but how about the harm to people with pre-existing asthma, respiratory infections, or eye allergies? After all, public beaches belong collectively to the citizens of a community. Why shouldn't those citizens decide, through their elected representatives, what conduct is permissible and what is not? Why should a minority of smokers be able to dictate public policy to a majority of non-smokers?
Ordinarily, in a democracy, we let the political process set restrictions on the use of public property. But there are limits on the exercise of political power. Under our constitutional system, a nonsmoking majority cannot arbitrarily stamp out the rights of a smoking minority. For a regulation to be legitimate, there must be a good fit between the regulation and the goal it seeks to accomplish.
That means smoking should not be banned-even on public property-without showing, first, that the ban will be effective and, second, that it will not proscribe more activities than necessary to reach its objective. Those two showings have not been made. The scientific link between secondhand smoke and various diseases is far from proven-especially on beaches. And regulations often prohibit smoking in locations that are not particularly confining, where patrons can easily avoid harm by taking a step or two away. If the scientific evidence were more compelling and the ban were limited to, say, reading rooms in public libraries, elevators in government office buildings, and restrooms at a state university, then a ban might be warranted. Not otherwise.
Government, not secondhand smoke, is polluting the beaches. Surely we can protect the legitimate rights of non-smokers without prohibiting smokers from relishing an occasional cigarette by the sea.
— Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Not necessarily. I just know that being truly free means that some individuals might just participate in behaviours that I don't like. I accept that they are free to do those things if no harm is brought to anyone else.
Littering harms the rest of us, enforce the existing littering laws to address the problem of littering.
I will state that with the attitude of many "conservatives" right here on FR, the Libertarian party is looking more tempting.
BeachesBeavis & Buttheads..... They can't spell the article title right !
Not a bit.
I do. It makes no difference if there any evidence linking it with cancer; I just don't want to breathe it. End of argument. Do whatever you want with your air, on your property, but as soon as it is my air, on public property, there is no "smoker's right" to foul it.
The conservative principle is that whoever owns the property gets to use it however they want. Ergo, ban smoking on public property. Let private property owners (which includes bars, restaurants, ball parks, etc.) decide for themselves.
We're almost there.
;O)
Hi SheLion, thanks for the ping.
First, the danger of second hand smoke is a lie. Both my parents smoked all my life and I never suffered any ill effects from it. I've smoked for over 20 years and can still outrun most of my peers. So the second hand smoke argument does not hold water. I realize that most anti-smokes cannot accept this FACT because it so severely curtails their argument and agenda.
To be fair, throwing cigarette butts on the ground is littering and there is no excuse for that. There are already laws addressing the act of littering so another law (smoking ban) will not make any difference. I NEVER throw my cigarette butts on the ground OR out the window. Remember, in the summer time there are folks on motorcycles including a friend of mine who was hit in the face by a lit butt that some careless driver threw out his window while driving down highway.
Smoking bans are nothing more than other people trying to force their will and views on me. Won't happen.
I am a courteous smoker. I don't throw my butts down (littering), and do not smoke where it is prohibited. I have been willing to meet the anti-smokers halfway. If the anti-smokers do not show the same courtesy, I will stop trying to meet them half way.
"I do. It makes no difference if there any evidence linking it with cancer; I just don't want to breathe it. End of argument."
So you also agree with the use of government force to ensure that you are not offended by a certain smell. How very conservative of you.
I don't like the smell of perfume, how about we ban perfume on all public property? Should we set up an olfactory sensor machine that all citizens must enter for screening prior to entering any public property? Who gets to set the olfactory standard?
I'm not usually so snarky.
Obviously, these things should be (and usually are) settled by discussion among civil people. Since smokers, as a group, are notoriously numb to everybody around them, they are beyond civil appeals.
There has to be a limit, of course, based on practicality. Addressing perfume is not practical and the problem (though legitimate) is about one millionth the scale of the smoke problem.
Banning smoking on public property is a straightforwardly conservative (even libertarian) exercise of government force.
Smoking, outside of your personal air space, it is an unlawful seizure of the air of thise around you and should be constrained by force, if necessary. Am I being at all unclear?
And the good news is that it will. The only reason it has taken this long is that it takes a while for a culture to get unaddicted.
My only regret is that the property rights of private, commercial establishments are being abused in the process, in an abuse at least as bad as the abuse it purports to cure.
"I agree with the use of government force to keep visible pollutants out of my air. Simple as that."
In your previous post you said that the SHS health issue was irrelevant because you didn't want to smell it. Which is it, a health issue or not.
If you can't make up your mind regarding the issue being a health issue or a smell issue how do you expect anyone reading your posts to take you seriously?
Would you accept an acceptable exposure level (PPM) for SHS? Would you accept a standard being established by the EPA?
Yes.
It is a property rights issue. I have no obligation to prove to you that a substance you are injecting into my air harms me, or even that I can smell it. If I can see it or smell it I should be able to choose not to breathe it. The limit to this principle is a practical one, not a legal or moral one.
There you have it. In the end, property is the bedrock of a rational civil order, so this perspective is the ONLY one that will ever work. Simple, direct, fair to all.
I recognize that property arguments are not at the basis of much of the law that is being written now and that is the reason for their frequent confusion and hypocrisy.
Don't be too hard on ol' Redbob. At least he's selected an appropriate moniker.
I agree. So you must be opposed to the smoking bans in bars and restaurants.
Absolutely. It is illegal and amounts to theft.
LOL !
I just don't want to breathe it. End of argument.
No doubt that if you had your way you'd ban public farting.
I agree with the use of government force to keep visible pollutants out of my air. Simple as that.
No doubt that if you had your way you'd ban public farting. Methane is a pollutant that destroys the ozone -- so they say. Cow farts contribute a measurable percentage of methane.
BTTT, I was going to post it. I live amongst the idiots in NY City and State. Bookmarked!
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.
