Posted on 01/05/2006 6:57:14 AM PST by SheLion
Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.
Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.
Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.
The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.
For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.
In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."
Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.
A note of disclosure: Our organization has no ties to the tobacco industry nor do we speak on the behalf of the hospitality industry.
Audrey Silk
FOUNDER
NYC CITIZENS LOBBYING
AGAINST SMOKER HARASSMENT
BROOKLYN
"The Fraud Examined in the BMJ"
There was a study done in Great Britain on ETS (environmental tobacco smoke). This study was done very slowly, methodically, and slowly. It took FORTY YEARS to finish. It finally finished last year, and was published in the reknowned British medical Journal. It concluded there was no great risk being exposed to ETS, and the Dr. that had headed the study even bemoaned the fact that he hated smoking-and wished it were otherwise-BUT-he reported the facts as the study showed, and their findings were true. Proving the outcry over the last 15 years to be false & misleading. What's that you say?? You never heard of this study?? Why...that's because the media in this country (and most others, I would imagine) REFUSED TO REPORT IT!! Yet the media will forever parrot the anti-smoker Taliban's garbage & hate-filled propaganda as gospel, because they hate smokers, too.
posted by Foolkiller at 05:30 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 21, 2005 #
Second Hand Smoke is NOT The Killer The Anti's Want You To Believe. Check out all the studies that have been and are being done on this issue
BUMP!
I have said all along that second hand smoke was a BS issue.
First, I hate smoking. That said, I also disagree with bans on smoking, lets businesses do as they please.
As far as the dangers of second-hand smoke, all I can say is I grew up in a chain-smoking household and I lived a very sick life up (breathing and hacking up muckus) until I turned 18 and left.
In related news, second hand smoke still disgusting and obnoxious.
It doesn't matter. This effort by the Smoke Gnatzies has taken on it's own life, even sucking in Conservatives and personal choices are declining when it comes to business owners deciding for themselves.
Like I've said before, as the left keeps curtailing choices, soon the only choice left will be to slaughter your unborn!
You know and I know that Audrey knows what she is talking about.............but alas, most will just ignore it.
Then stay away from smokers......
Nonetheless, quite benign in contrast to the ranting of anti-smokers.
Doesn't matter however, they will still tax and regulate and have one of the smallest percentages of Americans pay for everything with additional taxes.
OUCH, that hurts. More than one smoke Gnatzi has claimed my child would be better off had I had an abortion instead of being born to parents who happen to smoke.
In related news, second hand smoke still disgusting and obnoxious.
Nonetheless, quite benign in contrast to the ranting of anti-smokers.
***
I don't smoke, but I don't care if others do. I'd prefer they not do it in "my" space, though. I oppose smoking bans. It should be left to the property owner.
I'll also agree with you that the ranting of anti-smokers can be pretty shrill, but when it ends, it is over. The cigarette smoke in your clothes continues to smell, however, until they are cleaned.
bookmarked
I'm really surprised to see so many so-called Conservatives here jump on the Smoke Gnatzy band wagon and fail to see this isn't as much about smoking as it is control of the masses and denial of personal freedoms.
Smoking is only the smoke screen.
Typical. The smokers in my office huddle around the front door so that I can't get into the office without wading through the smoke. Still, I am bad for not liking the smoke and I am supposed to find a way to stay away from them.
From the article: Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
***
The bans are apparently premised on protecting smokers, but not necessarily just from health effects, but from the bothersome nature of the smoke to many people. I don't support such bans, except in public places where people don't have the choice on whether to be there or not (courthouses, city/county offices, etc.). The free market should control this behavior. If you want to smoke, go to an establishment that allows it. If you can't stand it, go to one that prohibits it.
As for "constitutional ethics" I don't know what that is. But every law is something of a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Criminal laws are addressed to a very small minority-- those who would commit crimes. I don't think this rises anywhere near a constitutional issue.
Cigar and pipe tobacco also? Or just cigarettes?
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.