Blowing Smoke
Recently a town in California banned smoking in virtually all public places. The move came as a result of a complaint made by a 19-year-old girl about having to encounter second-hand smoke. Smoking bans are beginning to pop up all over the country; New York, Florida, and California, all have laws that ban smoking in certain public areas. What I find scary about this is that non-smokers love these new laws because they don't have to be irritated by the smell of smoke, or the so-called "health risks." Oh people, sometimes I think we will never learn.
So what's wrong with banning smoking in restaurants? Well, here is one thing, the government is telling private business owners what they can and can't do in their establishments. That cannot be allowed. As long as the activities taking place in an establishment are legal, then the government can have no say as to what goes on in a place of business. It is not illegal to smoke, so the government should stay out of it. If an individual proprietor wants to ban smoking in his/her establishment, then that is their right. But it is not for the government to determine. See people don't think about the government intrusion aspect of it, and I suppose that is because, well, their clothes smell so much cleaner now. Now, I don't know about you people, but I'd rather deal with a smoky bar and keep my civil liberties, rather than have clean lungs, a nice smelling shirt, and eroding civil liberties.
The cornerstone of this debate for the anti-smoking lobby is one of the most bullshit phrases ever to enter the public discourse, "Second-Hand Smoke." The smoke you buy at a thrift store. Ok a bad joke, but back to my point. The anti-smoking nuts will go to great lengths to tell you about the damage that second-hand smoke can cause. They will throw so many statistics at you; your head will spin. But it is important to look carefully at the numbers, because if you do, you will find that though some of the statistics may be accurate, they are also misleading.
The biggest second-hand smoke claim is that it causes lung cancer. That's the big one. That is the one that the "Truth" group loves to talk about in their stupid commercials. Ok, so what are the statistics? How many lung cancer deaths are caused by second-hand smoke each year? It must be a lot of the government is passing laws because of it, right? Well according to the EPA, in their 1993 report, which caused the anti-smoking uproar in this country, they attribute 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year to second-hand smoke. 3,000. Now that may sound like a high number, but relatively, it’s quite low. In fact, each year, lung cancer kills about 160,000 people per year, and that includes all known causes. 160,000 per year die of lung cancer, and 3,000 of those deaths come from second-hand smoke. That means that second-hand smoke accounts for 1.9% of all lung cancer deaths. Radon gas by comparison accounts for 21,100 lung cancer deaths per year. That means that you are 7 times more likely to get lung cancer from radon, than you are from second-hand smoke. That 3,000 is statistically insignificant, and should in no way be used to substantiate a law.
It is also claimed that second-hand smoke causes between 35,000 and 62,000 coronary heart disease deaths per year. A much higher number. There must be some truth to this, right? Wrong. That number is the product of a calculation and proportioning of all heart disease deaths. It is based on a meta-analysis of passive smoking that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and concluded that passive smoking is related to a “small increase” increase coronary heart disease. That’s all it says, a small increase. The fact is that there is no conclusive proof that second-hand smoke is a hazard to the public health. There is no proof.
The anti-smoking lobby is full of propaganda and misinformation. The sad thing is that they are gaining momentum. Smoking bans are popping up all over the country, and it looks as though more are on the horizon. Smoking may bother you, it may make you sneeze, or make your clothes smell nasty, but that's not the issue. The issue is, that if these bans are a violation of civil liberties, and have no scientific basis, then why have them? Why support them?
Isn’t it amazing that a person will sit in a restaurant and abhor the health affects of second-hand smoke, while eating a high fat, high cholesterol meal? Or a person in a bar who wants to smoke has to go outside so he doesn’t interfere with the drunken non-smoker who wants to wreck his liver instead of his lungs. You can’t legislate against something because it is annoying, if you could, pop music would get you arrested.
Smoking is a nasty habit. It makes your clothes smell, makes you sneeze, and it is really irritating, but to me, it’s an acceptable nuisance, considering the alternative, the continued erosion of civil rights. Sometimes, in order to do the right thing, you have to support something that bothers you, and doing that, means you are grounded by principles. That is why I support smoker’s rights.
So what's wrong with banning smoking in restaurants? Well, here is one thing, the government is telling private business owners what they can and can't do in their establishments. That cannot be allowed. As long as the activities taking place in an establishment are legal, then the government can have no say as to what goes on in a place of business. It is not illegal to smoke, so the government should stay out of it. If an individual proprietor wants to ban smoking in his/her establishment, then that is their right. But it is not for the government to determine. See people don't think about the government intrusion aspect of it, and I suppose that is because, well, their clothes smell so much cleaner now. Now, I don't know about you people, but I'd rather deal with a smoky bar and keep my civil liberties, rather than have clean lungs, a nice smelling shirt, and eroding civil liberties.
The cornerstone of this debate for the anti-smoking lobby is one of the most bullshit phrases ever to enter the public discourse, "Second-Hand Smoke." The smoke you buy at a thrift store. Ok a bad joke, but back to my point. The anti-smoking nuts will go to great lengths to tell you about the damage that second-hand smoke can cause. They will throw so many statistics at you; your head will spin. But it is important to look carefully at the numbers, because if you do, you will find that though some of the statistics may be accurate, they are also misleading.
The biggest second-hand smoke claim is that it causes lung cancer. That's the big one. That is the one that the "Truth" group loves to talk about in their stupid commercials. Ok, so what are the statistics? How many lung cancer deaths are caused by second-hand smoke each year? It must be a lot of the government is passing laws because of it, right? Well according to the EPA, in their 1993 report, which caused the anti-smoking uproar in this country, they attribute 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year to second-hand smoke. 3,000. Now that may sound like a high number, but relatively, it’s quite low. In fact, each year, lung cancer kills about 160,000 people per year, and that includes all known causes. 160,000 per year die of lung cancer, and 3,000 of those deaths come from second-hand smoke. That means that second-hand smoke accounts for 1.9% of all lung cancer deaths. Radon gas by comparison accounts for 21,100 lung cancer deaths per year. That means that you are 7 times more likely to get lung cancer from radon, than you are from second-hand smoke. That 3,000 is statistically insignificant, and should in no way be used to substantiate a law.
It is also claimed that second-hand smoke causes between 35,000 and 62,000 coronary heart disease deaths per year. A much higher number. There must be some truth to this, right? Wrong. That number is the product of a calculation and proportioning of all heart disease deaths. It is based on a meta-analysis of passive smoking that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and concluded that passive smoking is related to a “small increase” increase coronary heart disease. That’s all it says, a small increase. The fact is that there is no conclusive proof that second-hand smoke is a hazard to the public health. There is no proof.
The anti-smoking lobby is full of propaganda and misinformation. The sad thing is that they are gaining momentum. Smoking bans are popping up all over the country, and it looks as though more are on the horizon. Smoking may bother you, it may make you sneeze, or make your clothes smell nasty, but that's not the issue. The issue is, that if these bans are a violation of civil liberties, and have no scientific basis, then why have them? Why support them?
Isn’t it amazing that a person will sit in a restaurant and abhor the health affects of second-hand smoke, while eating a high fat, high cholesterol meal? Or a person in a bar who wants to smoke has to go outside so he doesn’t interfere with the drunken non-smoker who wants to wreck his liver instead of his lungs. You can’t legislate against something because it is annoying, if you could, pop music would get you arrested.
Smoking is a nasty habit. It makes your clothes smell, makes you sneeze, and it is really irritating, but to me, it’s an acceptable nuisance, considering the alternative, the continued erosion of civil rights. Sometimes, in order to do the right thing, you have to support something that bothers you, and doing that, means you are grounded by principles. That is why I support smoker’s rights.
posted by Nick at 12:14 AM
1 Comments:
I found this blog by accident and I thought it was absolutely brilliant. This gentleman is a non smoker not an anti smoker and there lies the difference. If we are supposedly living in a free society why carnt business choose for its self whether to be smoking or non smoking. Truth is I have come to the conclusion that democracy is a lie and this senario proves it. When you can no longer do something which is legal in a public place there is something seriously wrong in society.
Post a Comment
<< Home