Too late for these two! heh!
Posted on 05/21/2006 4:00:08 AM PDT by SheLion
As a physician who has devoted 21 years to advocacy in tobacco control, conducting research and publishing a number of studies on the hazards of secondhand smoke, it is not surprising that I favor a wide range of anti-smoking measures. But anti-smoking tactics adopted by some municipalities, companies and organizations do not serve smokers or the public. The methods are mean-spirited, unsupported by science and attempt to stamp out smoking by punishing and marginalizing smokers. They go too far.
The City Council in Calabasas, Calif., recently enacted an ordinance - supported by several anti-smoking groups - that bans smoking in just about all outdoor areas of the city, including streets and sidewalks, unless there is no other person within 20 feet.
The expressed purposes of the ordinance are to protect nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke and to reduce “the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle.”
The hazards of exposure to smoking in the workplace have been proven, but there is no scientific evidence that shows that small, transient exposures to secondhand smoke in outdoor areas - places where people can easily avoid prolonged exposure - represent any serious public health problem.
The argument that these policies are needed to prevent children from seeing people smoke in public would ostracize citizens for pursuing a legal activity. What comes next? Laws that ban fat people from the public square so that children won’t associate obesity with public acceptability? Laws that prohibit people from eating fast food in public so children won’t see this behavior and associate it with a healthy lifestyle?
Frustrated by its inability to outlaw smoking, this arm of the anti-smoking front seeks to outlaw smokers. I’m all for efforts that make smoking seem less glamorous, desirable or cool, but it is wrong to restrict people’s rights because you do not like what they do.
Equally disturbing is another trend applauded by the anti-smoking movement that would have employers fire or refuse to hire smokers. According to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a Washington, D.C.-based anti-smoking organization: “Firing smokers is an appropriate and very effective way to stop burdening the great majority of employees who wisely chose not to smoke with the enormous unnecessary costs of smoking by their fellow employees.”
Michigan-based Weyco Inc., announced a policy of denying employment to smokers last year, and it has been followed by the World Health Organization, Scotts Miracle-Gro, Crown Laboratories, the city of Melbourne, Fla., and Truman Medical Centers in Kansas City, Mo.
ASH, along with these employers, argues that these policies are appropriate because they will reduce the increased health care costs associated with smoking. But what they also do is make smokers second-class citizens, depriving them of the right to make a living to support themselves and their families.
Is ASH serious? Should smokers not be allowed to hold jobs? Does it somehow promote public health to make the families of smokers go hungry? Should our society have two distinct classes, one that can work and another which cannot, simply because of a lawful, off-the-job behavior?
An appropriate public health policy for work-site health promotion would provide smoking employees with smoking-cessation programs, not fire them.
I fear that the anti-smoking movement is on the verge of running amok. Ultimately, what is at stake is the credibility of the tobacco-control movement, as well as the integrity of its evidence-based approach to the protection of the public’s health. If we lose that, then the truly legitimate, science-based aspects of tobacco control will be undermined. And then it will become difficult, if not impossible, to advance any policies to protect the public from the hazards of tobacco.
Also, when smokers are kicked out of their apartments, home (by lenders), and such ... will we begin to see "Smoker Ghettos" reminiscent of Warsaw in the 1940's?
Oh my, what a horrible thought!
Sad to say, I wouldn't doubt such a thing. I have never seen a campaign to ostracise people like these anti tobacco folks put on.
Well, I have to agree with you. When their war on the smokers didn't work, then they turned to the general non-smoking public telling them that second hand smoke is KILLING everyone. And pity those that actually believe this junk.
But if they totally succeed with getting rid of smokers, you know they won't stop there. They have more groups they want to stamp out. I wish they would get a life and stay out of ours!
My personal favorites are the ones who start coughing when you take out the pack. (No, you have not lit a cigarette, they just saw the pack.) What are they 'allergic' to?
Burger King has a great new politically incorrect burger commerical, I AM MALE a parody of Helen Reddy's I Am Woman, where men want their meat and burgers. One of the best parts is they trash the automotive symbol of the soccer mom and the nanny state which is a minivan.
"But if they totally succeed with getting rid of smokers, you know they won't stop there."
That's just the thing. I don't think this will stop until they get in our homes. The lies are just outrageous, and the propaganda they spout is insane.
And like you say, they're doing all this on our dime!
Maybe an ex-smoker with COPD?
That commercial is hilarious!
That's right. And the police have no time to enforce this petty annie stuff.
When California forced a smoking ban on the bars, the bars started a "phone tree." They would smoke until they got a call that the smoke police were on the prowl. Then, they would put away all the ashtrays. What a horrible way to have to run a business!
Well, when you hear of a state's "pet programs," these are the very programs they are talking about. Overly paying the anti's working in the Boards of Health. They are screaming they want smoke free everything, but I sure don't believe that. If a state went totally smoke free, these idiots would be out of a job.
I know a lot of FReepers hate smoking, and that's fine. It's not for everyone. But the more we can get the word out about what they are doing to us and private businesses, it will help to make people more aware of what is going on.
"People would take better care of themselves, use prescription drugs more wisely, etc., if they were responsible for a greater portion of the cost."
Only to a point, it costs me almost $500.00/month before I even use my insurance and I am 53 with a 5 year old daughter and an epileptic wife. It costs me an additional $150 a month for my wifes various meds and Dr visit copays. Because of this, I don't go to the doctor and there are more than one very big reasons that I should. I am a milignant melanoma survivor but fear it's returned and I suffer from severe degenerative arthritis in the neck and spine. I cannot afford to see a doctor or be hospitilized. My wife cannot drive and we live in the country. I'm screwed and I pay a very large chunk of money for my healthcare.
Too late for these two! heh!
Obviously, I was generalizing.
Champaign-Urbana, Il just enacted a smoking ban to start in August. Surrounding communities said smokers are welcome.
They interviewed the coordinator of the smoke free alliance and he said there was no or very little impact on businesses from smoking bans. I guess we'll find out this fall.
They interviewed the coordinator of the smoke free alliance and he said there was no or very little impact on businesses from smoking bans. I guess we'll find out this fall.
I posted this article this morning about all of Illinois not going smoke free. I commend them! Let the owners decide!
Illinois: Smokers welcome, cities say
City and village leaders in Gibson City, Gifford, Mahomet, Monticello, Paxton, Philo, Rantoul, Savoy, St. Joseph, Tolono and Villa Grove all say they have no plans to follow Champaign's lead in passing a comprehensive smoking ban, which will be effective Aug. 1 if Urbana approves a similar ordinance in the next several weeks.
Meanwhile, business owners in the surrounding communities say Champaign-Urbana smokers will be welcome there. They anticipate increased sales from C-U smokers looking for a place to puff.
As for smoking bans not hurting businesses, this just isn't so. Thousands of restaurants and bars across the country have closed when they were forced to go smoke free.
THE REAL FACTS OF THE SMOKING BANS IMPACT ON BUSINESS'S
The Facts
This burns me up more then I can say when a FReeper points blame at us saying that we keep saying that smoking does not cause harm. This is a blatant lie. We have never ever said that smoking is harmless.
But it IS legal. And what the government is doing to us for using a legal product is downright illiterate! IMHO.
Usally a never smoker with a craniorectal insertion.
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.