Reading Kevin Leininger's column today on the possibility of a countywide smoking sort of took me back in time:
Smoking foes aren't overly interested in civics, of course. Tobacco Free Allen County, for example, claims it wants to protect workers and cites statistics purporting to show that 1,240 Hoosiers die from secondhand smoke every year and that fine-particle air pollution in Fort Wayne declined 94 percent after Council's ban took effect.
Interesting, since even Crawford himself released a study in 2006 showing the absence of nicotine in the no-smoking sections of city restaurants
Comments
The reason that there is nothing in the piece about liberty, or freedom, or individual rights or private property is that the issue has NOTHING to do with with any of those straw dogs. As anybody with two functioning brain cells and a pulse should know by now is that this is a public health issue, pure and simple.
This is not just my opinion, but also that of the AMA, the NIH, American Cancer Society, the WHO, the Surgeon General, the American Lung Association, etc, etc. And if those folks are wrong, then why not let all public health concerns be in the hands of individual businesses in the public sector (even if privately owned)? Indeed, why should they have to obey laws regarding food storage and preparation and similar inconveniences. Say, maybe we could make spittoons available again in bars and restaurants as an owner option. Hey, since I'm on a roll, why not have schools, hospitals, department stores and the like go back to the old "smoke 'em if you got 'em" days?
The fact that the absence of second hand smoke in any confined space open to the public also has many positive fringe benefits must be especially galling to the 20% (and dwindling) of the population who still are stupid enough to smoke. Once second hand smoke is removed from indoors at places open to the public, they will lose their ability to force their habits to affect the behavior of the other 80% of us whose vices are at least not inflicted on others.
"Tobacco Free Allen County, for example, claims it wants to protect workers and cites statistics purporting to show that 1,240 Hoosiers die from secondhand smoke every year and that fine-particle air pollution in Fort Wayne declined 94 percent after Council
Smoking in restaurants was presented as a public health issue. If a waitress is exposed to that much second-hand smoke, it's going to affect her health; employers ought not be able to hire people to commit suicide, even on the installment plan, but ought to provide a reasonably safe workplace within the limits of the employment. (Obviously, a fireman is going to experience second-hand smoke on the job, but the employer needs to limit it as much as he can.)
In buildings with shared HVAC systems, it's reasonable to ban smoking, so that the residents of apartment 3G don't kill the people in apartment 5A with their smoke.
There used to be a valid argument that since so many people were becoming a burden on the taxpayer because they had massive health care bills from smoking - but since people are held responsible for carrying adequate health insurance, that argument is no longer valid. Obamacare is a triumph for those of us who think personal responsibility and individual freedom need to be maximized. It may not solve the bar and restaurant problem or the shared HVAC problem, but these days, we need to appreciate small victories.
The No Smoking laws are all about government control as is being demonstrated by the FDA efforts to ban the smoking of e-cigarettes, which could not, because of designed chemistry, include carcinogens.
The second hand smoke claim is junkscience just as is global warming. There were not 1294 death certificates issued this year in Indiana with "second hand smoke" listed as cause of death. There is no body of evidence or study which supports the over-the-top claims by organizations (whose funding depends upon the perception) that inhaling smoke occasionally for short periods is fatal. The dishonesty of simply declaring a 30% increase in risk, for example, does not reflect that statistics of a 200% increase are usually required to validate that other "noise" factors are not at play in the correlation study. Guess what -- few if any of the voluminous smoking studies go that high.
Please don't tell me that cigarette smoke is unpleasant because I agree with you -- but it does not kill unless you are doing the smoking.
Well, Tim and gadfly, I don't want to keep you too long here, or you might miss your regular meeting of the Flat Earth Society, but I guess I'll just side with the Surgeon General who says:"The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke." and "Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke. "
Of course, any science that doesn't support your preconceived notions is automatically junk science by your definition. I guess I'll choose to believe people who actually know something about science, as I do, and adopt the more-dare I say it-conservative viewpoint, especially as it relates to human health.
Believe whomever you want CED, in the meantime why don't you rustle us up a copy of a death certificate listing second hand smoke as the cause of death. According to the "experts" you believe above, you should be able to produce 1240 of 'em right?
For your information, Mr. Swing, yes, I've been down the road on this topic and others that involve interpretation of scientific evidence with these folks before, so I know that it takes a little snark to even get a word in edgewise in this so-called debate.
I'll produce death certificates listing second-hand smoke as a cause of death when anyone produces those that list smoking as cause of death, instead of smoking-caused cancer, heart problems, emphysema, etc. as the cause of death. Just because I strongly favor banning smoking indoors in any facility open to the public doesn't mean I agree with every syllable of every statement that Tobacco Free Allen County issues. Having said that, I've had plenty of first-hand experience helping to bury friends and family who were not smokers, but went to an early grave at least partially from prolonged contact with a heavily smoke-filled environment.
And, BTW, Mr. Swing, are you equating the concentration and ingredients in "restaurant" smoke to those in tobacco smoke? If so,that's kind of "sloppy logic" in my book.
Finally, while I agree with many-certainly not all-of the points you make in your posts here on other topics, for you to lecture me on "snotty" remarks is the height of hypocrisy. You -as well as folks like Mr. Zank, Mr. Kalb, and several others-seem to be well-qualified to teach college-level courses on snottiness.
CED: It's not sloppy logic. Tell us the scientific evidence for the risk-free level of exposure to the smoke and other air-borne byproducts produced by cooking things. The point isn't the comparative level of danger of the things, it's the sloppy logic that there has to be a risk-free level of exposure of anything to allow it.
"Please see my original post above wherein I point out that, as it stands now, 20% of the population gets to affect the behavior of the other 80%."
As long as people are free to associate or not with who they please, there's always going to be a smaller percentage of people affecting the larger percentage who choose to or not to associate with them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But like I said, doesn't bother me either way. Sometimes anti-smokers will win (even alcohol prohibitionists won for a while.) Sometimes they won't.
As for being snotty, the key is to not initiate, but never shy away from hitting right back.
Or, the Wheatonian Ideal of "Don't Be A Dick" tempered with a Swayze-ian "Be Nice, Until It's Time Not To Be Nice."
Well, I guess I left off this part after "... other 80%" :,when it affects human health. Because when your convoluted argument plays out, you're right that it isn't always a bad thing for a minority to affect the behavior of a majority, except that in this case it is.
Well, let me know what "things" are being cooked and maybe I can do some research. In the meantime, however, the components and effects of tobacco smoke are well known. The effects of over-broiled salmon, not so much. At least, I'm not aware of any statement by the Surgeon General on it. And THAT is precisely the point. Again, you can refute the statement, if you like, but I choose to side with the preponderance of evidence that he(she) is right.
Thanks for your advice. I'm afraid I will continue to decide for myself when hitting back is warranted.
First post in the thread isn't hitting back. For once Leo has a point about there being elements left out. Public health doesn't always trump liberty or personal property rights, and those things shouldn't be left out. No matter how just you think your cause it.
Particulate matter in the air is particulate matter in the air. Are you saying cigarette smoke is the only particulate matter that's damaging at all?
I'm done with you. I'm right, you're wrong. Public health ALWAYS trumps so-called liberty and/or personal property rights. Don't care whether there is other particulate matter that is damaging. If there is, eventually there will be evidence to that effect, and the government should then act. As it is, there's plenty of evidence that tobacco smoke is damaging. It is not only the right of government to act accordingly, it is it's duty. End of story.
I will "hit back" any time I choose, thank you.
You can call a first strike hitting back if you want, doesn't change what it is. :D
If your whole attitude is "I'm right you're wrong I'm not talking to you anymore" why didn't you just save us all the trouble and not say anything in the first place?
Look, I've watched your modus operandi on this blog over some time. You apparently like to blog. I personally think it is a colossal waste of time. However, I happen to to be passionate on the issue at hand for very personal reasons.
I have expressed my viewpoint and the reasons for it. You have expressed yours. There's no movement on either side. I refuse to continue beating a dead horse.
Have a nice weekend.
Eh, whatever. I like to comment, I think you mean. Which means you're wasting just as much time.
"I
I think I liked things better half a century ago when, if someone dumped trash in your lungs or on your land, Officer Obie arrested you and hauled you into court with 27 8x19 color glossies and as a consequence, you sat on the Group W bench, playing with the pencils and talking with the father-rapers.
This modern notion, which has people attacking me with pollution, and me unable to sue them because of tort "reform" is damnably annoying. Perhaps we could compromise? You know, like a law that says if you attack me with your smoke, I can urinate on you, and if your truck attacks me with smoke, I can shoot at your gas tank?