OP-ED On a smoking ban
S.C. Dixon - Emporia
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
I BELIEVE in a free-market economy. In America anyone with a skill or talent, or anyone willing to work or provide a service can prosper. Like most business people, small or large, I abhor intervention from nameless, faceless entities that without scrutiny can mutate into a ruling class unto themselves.
I loathe the creeping intervention of the so-called “nanny state” into our personal lives. Now there are city governments taking on the roll of arbiters of what foods we are allowed to serve or consume.
(We have a growing lobby of people demanding the eradication of incandescent light bulbs. Instead replace them with fluorescent bulbs that cost the consumer four times as much and which bring quantities of mercury, which we’re now told is a deadly biohazard, into our homes). The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The front page article of the Emporia Gazette, Friday, April 11, 2008, concerning a new advocacy group, Clean Air Emporia, gave me a vague sense of apprehension.
I am co-owner of a local nightspot. Three partners, two of whom DO NOT smoke cigarettes, discussed whether or nor our place would be smoke-free. We decided, at least for the time being, to allow smoking in our business. Because we own the business, because we pay the bills and the considerable taxes, it is our right to make that decision.
The next phase of this equation rests with our clientele. Spending their own money gives them the right to decide whether or not to patronize our business. If they choose to be in a smoke-free environment it is inarguably their right to avoid our pub. If they choose to smoke or to be around those who do, it is likewise their right to make that decision.
Nothing in this scenario invites or requires the arbitrary input or decision from any third party entity.
Millions and millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on anti-smoking campaigns and propaganda. Conversely millions and millions of taxpayer dollars are spent subsidizing tobacco growers.
Rather than interfering with business and the free market, groups wanting to control tobacco use should instead consider spending their time and efforts petitioning a government that speaks conveniently from both sides of its collective mouth.
Many state governments have successfully sued the tobacco giants, promising to use the money to rehabilitate smokers and to provide health care for folks who have suffered from using tobacco related products. They also promised us all a large slice of pie to be served somewhere high in the stratosphere.
Simple research showed that by and large they have lied.
It is also noteworthy that tobacco is not an illegal substance. It is grown, processed and distributed by legal means, albeit heavily controlled by state and federal law.
It is widely quoted that Albert Einstein once said that “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
With that in mind I urge folks to revisit their history books and to read about a period not so long ago in American history. A time when the high and mighty capriciously decided what would be best for everyone else, whether they liked it or not. A “morale mandate,” so to speak.
A sweeping reform, the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed “for the good of the nation and its people.”
It unleashed a period of political and law enforcement corruption the magnitude of which the country had never seen. By the end of the period known as “Prohibition,” organized crime had grown a hundred fold and the repercussions are still felt today.
After 13 years of graft, corruption, fraud, murder, mayhem and the creation of a black market of international dimensions, the so-called “Noble Experiment” failed — as it was doomed to do from the start, because in the end it is true that governments cannot (successfully) legislate their own particular brand of “morality.”
Educating the public is one thing, legislating is another. I choose not to live as a Socialist. Let me decide what is best for me. I will extend the same courtesy to you.
S.C. Dixon owns a photography studio and a share of a tavern in downtown Emporia.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by vankamp (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you S.C.. Great article. I do not smoke and don't particularly enjoy a smoky atmosphere. But I also have a few brains and know that if I don't like it I just don't go in there. The government already interfers too much as it is. I do feel differently about smoking in public buildings where you might not have a choice about whether or not you will enter.
Posted by gold66801 (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Get real idoit
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gold, get a real spelling book!!!
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the comparison to Prohibition is very poor. The Clean Air movement strives to reduce second hand smoke in public places, NOT to ban smoking all together. Drinking alcohol in public only affects the drinker. Second hand smoke affects every person in the vicinty.
Second hand smoke is deadly to those who are exposed to it. This includes young children who do not choose to go into resturants in which they are exposed to second hand smoke.
It is a public health issue. Reducing second hand smoke benefits our children, citizens and community.
Posted by emporiateacher (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Absolute! I couldn't agree more!
Posted by greenday (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Absolute- Drinking alcohol in public only affects the drinker.
SINCE WHEN??? What about the drive home? It was a pretty good comparison. Drinking in public affects EVERYONE around that person.
create- again with caring if someone can or can't spell. WHO GIVES A +++++ DELETED++++? We get the jist of the idiots comment w/o treating them like a kindergardner.
Great article S.C.
Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If someone wants smoking banned in public places because of the harm caused by second hand smoke - I can understand that argument. What I cannot understand and cannot agree with would be having the government come in and tell a private business owner that they have to run a smoke free establishment. In that sense I agree with SC completely. If people are offended by the second hand smoke then they have the choice to not go there. Public places are a completely different issue.
Posted by toninj (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Before the city officials make any decisions on this matter, they really need to look at what other cities have done. It would be crazy for them to go completely off this group’s recommendation. I don’t know anything about Mrs. Sauder and how she became involved, I do know about the other women though. They have spent several years now trying to push off their own values on the rest of Emporia, and tried to call it intervention work. In my opinion they have given a bad name to true intervention.
As a parent I choose not to take my children to restaurants that allow smoking as I am aware of what second hand smoke can do. Ultimately, this really needs to be the business’ decision though. With the state of our economy right now I think each business needs to be able to make decisions best for their business and not have local government dictate to them what they have to do.
It may be time for local business to work together and do their own research to fight this movement and what they want. It would be wise for them to look at other cities and the ordinances they have come up with. For example many have not included the bars and have put time restrictions on restaurants.
Posted by oxen (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We don't smoke, don't like smoke, but we do believe in keeping this a free country. There are entirely too many people that think they need to impose their will on the rest of us.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see how any rational person can argue with Mr. Dixon's logic. We already have WAY too much government involvement in our lives. Literally any activity in our society produces a wave of results, positive and negative, that may offend or even harm some, but does that automatically call for intervention by Big Brother? Reverend Phelps and his cult are free to worship but doing so offends many. Such is the case with drinking. I hate drinking, so I avoid drinkers. It's my choice in a free society. How far are we going to let government into our lives? Drivers under 25 kill way too many people each year. Legislate? ATVs kill way too many kids. Legislate? Men wearing tight briefs dramatically reduce odds of their spouse getting pregnant. Make those bad boys illegal? Get over it, cry babies. Not everyone embraces your lifestyle or values. Live and let live. Even you, gold66801. You have the right to be an "idoit" without some smart person taking offense and trying to have you forced by legislation to become literate.
Posted by greenday (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL Well put Bjnemp
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK Greenday and BJ, I stand corrected and apologize for splitting hairs.
Smoking is a personal choice, and when one group of would-be standard bearers decides to try to legislate personal choice to an entire city, the one thing we all have to be concerned about is what's next on their agenda?
I'm curious. What is the impetus for this group to want Emporia to be smoke free? Are they truly worried about second-hand smoke, or is there some kind of reward involved? Maybe it's a power trip.
Those who are in the private business sector know all too well how much it costs them to remain in business, not only with the taxes they must pay, but keeping up with a host of regulations as well. With all that, they should not have to kowtow to the whims of a few do-gooders who don't seem to have anything better to do.
Something of this magnitude needs to go to a vote by the people, not a unilateral decision by the City Commission.
Let it be known that I am a former smoker, but this has nothing to do with smoking. This has everything to do with personal rights!
Posted by toninj (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Create: Well said this is a matter of personal rights. It is also the rights of those that own the business.
As for my family we make a choice not to go to the businesses that allow smoking, but that is my choice. I would not support the local government pushing my choice off onto others.
Posted by equalrights (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Which bar does he own?
Posted by momus (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can see how some would shy away from added government involvement in our lives. However, I don't buy the whole personal rights slant of this debate. Let's face it, when you are talking about smoking, someone's rights are being infringed upon. If you limit where smokers can practice their habit, you challenge smoker’s rights. If you don't put limits on smoking, you deny others the basic right to breathe clean air. No matter which way you address the issue (or don't address the issue) someone's rights are being infringed upon.
So, we are left with government agencies telling businesses what they can and cannot do. Beyond the obvious fact that the government already sets business standards (safety, hours of operation, etc.), is this really an individual liberty issue? Businesses naturally resist segmenting their potential customer base, so bars in particular will resist any attempt to curtail a behavior in their establishments that they believe will discourage patronage. Emporia simply doesn't have the population that would support a niche strategy of "smoke free" establishment existing simultaneously with smoking establishments, so we basically have an all or nothing option.
Well, people that are bothered by smoke simply don't have to go to a bar, is an argument I have read here. So one group has the right to participate in a behavior that discourages the participation of another group? Hmmm, that argument sounds vaguely familiar. The very nature of a public place lends itself to a certain level of decorum. You obviously can't do certain things in public that you can do in your own home. My standard in determining what constitutes acceptable behavior is the behaviors effect on me physically. You can drink in public, and as long as you don't start a fight (physical) or operate a motor vehicle past the point of intoxication (illegal and potentially physical) you aren't affecting me physically. Your smoke does affect me physically. So why are your rights more important than mine? Why do you have the right to dictate where I can and cannot go and the quality of the air I must breathe if I choose to have a beer?
As a disclaimer, I really am not very passionate about this issue. I am a non-smoker that does occasionally patronize the local bar scene. But I know that the statements above to approximate some of the comments I have heard from non-smokers. So, in the interest of full dialogue, I have taken the other side of the issue to promote some deeper thought than "you can't tell me what to do". Think about this issue from others perspectives in order to determine if we can have a civil discussion and have the chance for compromise, please. Thank you.
Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
momus
I understand playing devil's advocate to create discussion on this topic, but I think BJ and others have made good points regarding this issue. It's all about personal choice. Thank God we live in a society (at the moment anyway) that allows us to have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Personal responsibility is a beautiful thing and it's unfortunate that our court systems have tried to completely eliminate this (always blame someone else for your own actions or a mental state or something), but when it comes down to it - everything we do or say is our choice.
You mentioned rights - that the argument that a person who doesn't want to be in that environment can just not go there - you said "So one group has the right to participate in a behavior that discourages the participation of another group?". By participate in a behavior, do you mean going to a bar or eating at a restaurant? There are many bars and restaurants that are smoke free, so I would say it is up to that individual to find those and go there if they feel so strongly about it. Granted, they might have to drive to another town to find it, but that is their choice. Also, I wouldn't say that going to a restaurant or bar is a right, but rather a privilege. Any bar or restaurant owner has the ability to refuse service to individuals based on certain factors, so I guess that is why I see it as a privilege.
You do have some interesting points to ponder regarding what constitutes acceptable behavior to each individual. I, also, am not overly passionate about this specific topic because I am not a smoker and personally I do not enjoy going to an establishment and leaving smelling like smoke, but at the same time it is my choice and I do feel very strongly that privately owned businesses have the right to make this decision, not the government.
Posted by momus (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for the articulate response lifer. As a compromise action, what are your thoughts (or anyone else’s thoughts) concerning a partial ban? If the city said that all pre-existing restaurants and bars were "grandfathered in", but if a bar or restaurant either changed hands or opened a new location it must run smoke free, would that be acceptable? New business owners would know exactly what they were getting into, while pre-existing businesses would not be forced to change their business model. Over an extended period of time the community would move towards a smoke free environment, but it would avoid the sudden shock caused by an all out ban.
Is that an acceptable compromise? Or, am I oversimplifying an issue to which there can be no compromise?
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Momus, but no matter how you cut it, that steak is still burned. Your compromise still resides in the government legislating personal choice. If you choose to have a beer, it looks like you need to choose to go to an establishment that is smoke free.
Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I expected a bit of a “fire-storm” (pun fully intended) about my views on smoking bans. I do want to make clear that, in general, I'm not talking about open smoking in restaurants. I don’t want to see people lighting up at McDonalds or anywhere that is otherwise “kid friendly.” But the fact is that taverns, pubs and taverns really shouldn’t have kids present in the first place.
I'm sorry to say that there does seem to be a bit of a “power trip” attitude among some folks who vaguely mind anyone else having a good time. We see this when certain businesses volunteer to segregate smokers but some advocacy groups feel that doesn’t go far enough. It is almost as if they want to punish people who are of a different mind.
I will also admit that I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but being called an “idoit” is a real first for me…
SCD
Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
momus,
Unfortunately I don't agree that your suggestion would be a good compromise. The grandfathered-in businesses would have an unfair advantage as far as customer base. I appreciate the idea you presented as a possible alternative, but unfortunately I don't see a compromise that I would accept when it comes to the government regulating a private business on this matter. I can understand the government making those decisions for its own buildings, etc., but not someone else's. That is the one place I would be willing to compromise - gov't run/owned/operated buildings, etc. could ban smoking.
Here is an example of far fetched government interference, but it goes along the same lines. I doubt it would happen, but you never know. When would the government banning stop, next they might ban a person from smoking in their own home because other people would want the right to go visit that person. I know that seems like a silly example, but when a private citizen funds their home or business with their own money, they should have the ability to make these decisions and not have them handed down to them from someone else. It all goes back to Free Enterprise and Choices. We all still have choices.
For example, there is an establishment in town that I refuse to frequent simply because the owner is a jerk. Sure this establishment may have the best food in town or entertainment or drinks or whatever else they may have that perhaps other establishments do not offer, but I can't get the government to pass a law banning jerks from running places, so I make the choice to go elsewhere and not give my business to that person. That is my choice because I can live without that steak or that drink or seeing that band, etc. That is my choice.
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another opinion.
The Solution is legislation that protects and balances the rights of Non-Smokers,
Property Owners and Smokers alike. If we are truly interested in air quality the Federal Government has air quality standards in place for every chemical purportedly found in
second hand smoke. We could through public debate designate which establishments
require public attendance and which do not.
Grocery stores or hospitals would be good examples of private property where people
might be forced by necessity to frequent. The Downtown Bar and Grill would not be a location anyone would specifically be forced by law or necessity to frequent.
Legislation, could be used to enforce an owners choice to have a smokeless
establishment, even if the law otherwise allowed smoking on his or her property.
Millions of dollars spent on enacting and enforcing smoking bans could be better used
to encourage business owners to voluntarily provide smokeless areas or total
smokeless business environments
Should Everyone's
Rights Be Protected?
Clearly the answer is yes. It is in our own interest to defend our neighbors rights as if
they were our own. Ultimately, it is by defending your rights that I preserve mine. The
quote " I may not agree with what you are saying but I would die for your right to say it"
means just that.
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done, Emporialifer, especially your example about banning jerks. LOL
SC, I'll try to get in to The Rope soon and buy you a beer. We will toast "idoits" on general principle. Maybe even print t-shirts. "Hug your neighborhood Idoit today."
Posted by toninj (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
emporialifer: I love the example of avoiding businesses owned by jerks, wouldn't it be great to get that ban in effect! It is true though if we start here with a ban on smoking, where will it end.
momus: I think you have made some really good points; I am like you and as a non-smoker I am not passionat about this topic. However, I have to disagree about the size of this community having to be an all or nothing option.
Just for information for those of you that this is an issue that you want to take an active role. This website list cities in KS with current bans and what exemptions they have put in place.Many of these communities are the same size as ours. As I stated earlier I think businesses may need to get their own group together and do some research if they plan on fighting this one.
http://www.khi.org/resources/video/201-S...
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This, in my opinion is just
"the hot topic of the day"
wait till the gazette puts another article on refugees, schools,city/county budget or more layoffs and this topic will fall by the wayside, they always do.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a smoker; have been since 1962. I crave the toxic devil weed and enjoy it immensely. I also consider myself to be a good and considerate person. I never smoke in a restaurant. I ask for the non-smoking section. I am there to eat, not smoke. I'll smoke outside when I am finished. I never smoke when those around me do not. That's just the polite thing to do. I never smoke around children or even in my own home when we have non-smoking guests. Again, it's just the polite thing to do.
I know many people consider me to be a heathen or sub-standard human because I choose to smoke, and that is their right, but I don't want their values forced upon me as I don't force mine upon them.
I may attract some unfriendly fire for this, but I feel there are people in our community who have FAR too much time on their hands. They seek out other bored, unfilled people and hold meetings. They sip espresso and nibble cookies while seeking causes to pursue to fill their idle hours. In order to ensure their pathway to heaven, or impress other socially superior do-gooders, they attempt to convince the rank and file common folk to conform to their values and lifestyle. The vigilantes of vice find the easiest way to rid their environment of behavior they find deplorable, or beneath their standards, is to call for government involvement and/or legislation.
What makes America better than any other nation is our inherent right of choice. We have the right to choose to smoke, or not to. It is perfectly legal and subsidized by our government tax revenues. I really dislike country music but I don't judge those who do like it, or try and have it banned. Instead, I just don't frequent places that feature country music. See how easy it can be?
I wish the well-meaning social crusaders would find something else to do. Maybe tennis, bridge, or golf. If not, then take up a cause that will benefit all and do some real good. Perhaps try and force people who move here to learn to speak English, or ban unlicensed drivers, or maybe champion government crackdowns on drug dealers and illegal immigrants. How about targeting fat folks who eat fast food or people who buy homes they can't afford?
Leave us smokers alone. We are nice people who just want to be allowed to enjoy our one vice in life. Don't judge us, or try and change us, or ostracise us from society and we won't judge you if, hypothetically, you drink too much, take too many prescription drugs, cheat on your taxes (or spouse), or are a racist. As an American, you have the right to speak against what I do. But when you attempt to force me to think as you do, you cease being an American and become a socialist.
Posted by nutsaboutools (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BJ you nailed it! S.C. nice article.
Posted by sadinemporia (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you don't like it, don't be around it. I don't smoke, never have, but it is also my choice to be around it if I want to, ie. in bars particularly. People need to grow up and stop whining about every little thing that they don't like or that isn't going their way. What don't you understand about "free"dom?
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Should we eliminate OSHA standards so that the government doesn't "interfere" with a business' "rights"?
How about health code violations? Go ahead and get rid of those too?
Those standards are about keeping the community and workers SAFE. Businesses have to cooperate with these regulations.
There are lots of rules, regulations and laws for restaurants, hospitals, bars, day cares, etc. These are there for a reason. Ordinances reducing second hand smoke are no different than any of the above.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Absolute: Totally different issue. OSHA rules, health code violations, and similar regulations you mention have nothing to do with me or my freedoms. I didn't undercook the meat, put the grease all over the kitchen floor, breed the roaches on the counter, or allow the pedophile to work in the day care. That's a very different issue. We are talking personal rights of citizens here and when you attempt to tell me where I can smoke or can't smoke, eat or not eat, which water fountain I must use, or where I can sit on the bus, you are not only disrespecting me, but disrespecting the constitution and Bill of Rights. That is why your examples don't hold water.
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bj, you should have no right to pollute our air with your smoke. Period. Clean air is the default. You are impinging on my personal right to breath clean air when you expose me to your smoke.
You have the right to mess up your own lungs and body, but you should not have the right to choose that for me.
People have the RIGHT to smoke. No one here is trying to take that away!!! But people also have the right to breathe clean air!
Smokers apparently feel like their civil liberties including smoking whenever and where ever they want...and people who don't want those carcinogens need to move. Wrong. Smokers need to move. Not the ones that are just trying to breathe clean air.
Whose civil liberties and freedoms are really at stake here?
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From the KC Star...
Smoking ban won’t hurt bars, restaurtants
There’s a serial killer raging in Kansas City. It strikes men, women, and children and subjects its victims to slow, agonizing deaths, yet we can stop it without any bloodshed if enough voters care.
The murderer is smoking, the largest preventable cause of death and illness in this country. The Centers for Disease Control reports smoking takes more than 440,000 lives nationwide each year, including about 50,000 nonsmokers.
This total approximately equals the population of Kansas City. For every person who dies, there are 20 more people with serious smoking related illnesses. The CDC calculates the annual cost of smoking in the United States is $167 billion, more than enough to provide health care to all of the country’s uninsured.
As an actuary, I’ve studied smoker and nonsmoker mortality since 1980, and I know the evidence against smoking is well-documented and heart-breaking. Nicotine is so addictive, it’s very difficult to quit smoking. Nothing I can say will stop a smoker, but it’s time we prevent smokers from taking nonsmokers with them.
The surgeon general says there is no safe level of second-hand smoke and that smoke cannot be contained or filtered out of the air in buildings. Besides pregnant women and children, the surgeon general advises everyone with heart disease or at risk for developing heart disease to avoid buildings where smokers are present.
Fortunately, we have a solution: a public smoking ban. One year after implementation of such a ban in Scotland, heart attacks had decreased 17 percent for both smokers and nonsmokers. The Scotland study also found a 39 percent reduction in nicotine levels in children and non-smokers.
The opportunity to save lives is priceless. However, many would rather let people die to protect the personal freedom of bar and restaurant owners. I’ve found many of these proponents of personal rights claim to be the champions of family values and guardians of life.
I believe it’s hypocritical for anyone to claim moral superiority if they put the business interests over the rights and health of people.
They argue a smoking ban will hurt bar and restaurant business. However, this claim is merely a smokescreen by the tobacco industry, the same industry that once declared cigarettes safe.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The CDC says that peer-reviewed studies, “examining objective indicators such as taxable sales revenue and employment levels have consistently found that smoking restrictions do not have a negative economic impact on restaurants and bars.”
In other words, New York, California, and all other states and municipalities with smoking bans have reported increased bar and restaurant revenues as well as an increase in the number of bar and restaurant workers every year. Even Ireland, a country known for pubs and heavy smokers, reports a healthier pub economy.
Studies commissioned by the tobacco industry use perceptions and limited surveys, not facts reported to the government for tax purposes.
Finally, they argue that if people stop smoking, we’ll have too many elderly citizens to support. To me, that’s like applauding Scrooge for urging the poor to die, “and decrease the surplus population.”
They needn’t worry. Nonsmokers not only live longer, they work longer and more productively and have lower medical expenses to more than offset the costs of growing old.
I can’t condone any belief that places business income over the rights and health of people. It’s certainly not the values I want to instill in my family. If there is an afterlife, I want to be able to say I did all I could to save lives.
Statistics are only numbers until someone you love loses his or her life. Don’t let that happen to your friends and family. Don’t be fooled by another tobacco industry smokescreen.
Denise Tiller is an actuary, author and mother. She lives in Stilwell.
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah Secret police , Blah Blah blah Totalitarianism. Blah Blah Propaganda. blah blah blah Communist state. blah blah dictatorship.
now I'm going to take my un nuetured dog on a walk without a leash, while I'll smoke a cig and Carelessly blow the smoke in the clean air, go pick up my kid early from school then go home drink and drink lots of beer before I drive to the bar. I figure I better enjoy life before I get laid off from work
Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I guess the government better ban strong perfume and cologne, certain hairsprays, bad body odor, and how do I say this nicely - people with gas that fell the need to pollute the air while in public, because all of those above things are infringing on my right to breathe clean air! Can you imagine that court case? Judge to the defendent "The jury hereby sentences you to 3 months jail and 3 months probation for unlawful passing of gas in a public place".
Sorry absolute, but OSHA standards do not compare to this when it comes to government regulations on businesses. Apples and oranges on that comparison.
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How is OSHA different than a Clean Air ordinance?
Here is a summary of OSHA's purpose...
" Its mission is to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths by issuing and enforcing rules (called standards) for workplace safety and health."
Is the comparison of Prohibition to this ordinance a good comparison?
Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, if enough people die from smoking and all the other reasons we die there shouldn't be any over population problems. LOL Just saying.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You've been brainwashed, Absolute. I bet Al Gore is your hero and you are incensed over the raid on the polygamist compound in Texas, too. You will die from breathing fumes from cars, trucks, and industrial smokestacks long before you get ill from my smoke. You say I am infringing on your rights. I say you are attempting to infringe on mine. We will never agree so we will just remain friends and agree to disagree.
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHA
Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
OSHA begs to differ.
OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)
There. Feel better?
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/...
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The OSHA studies above confirm my premise that anti-smoking vigilantes have been brainwashed by being fed a repetitive barrage of misinformation and lies. They use these false "facts" as scare tactics to sway public opinion to their socially righteous "holier than thou" way of thinking and toward infringing upon my harmless right to participate in a legal activity. Find a new soapbox, anti-smokers. Yours is weak and flimsy.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is refreshing to see there are more independent thinkers out there than I thought there was.
OSHA is more about creating jobs and generating revenue(like most all government agencies, programs and policies) than it is about promoting work safety. How does fining a company thousands of dollars benefit the victim of a work place injury? It doesn't. If you are killed at work, in Kansas your family and dependents are only going to get an amount equal to one year's salary from Work Comp, that's the law. If the company wasn't following OSHA standards, doesn't matter if you sue or not, Kansas law says you get the same amount of compensation. The company will be fined many times that amount, will spend thousands on getting up to OSHA standards, they all about money as well.
"You are impinging on my personal right to breath clean air when you expose me to your smoke."
Absolute, are you saying the same thing to every car driver that goes by polluting your air, to every factory you drive by that is emitting pollution into the air you breath, telling the feedlots you drive that make your nose curl they are offending your nose etc?
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay then! I have read all the above comments in this debate and the decision is clear. "Clean Air Emporia" is a small group of elitist fear-mongers using baseless facts and misinformation in an attempt to promote their personal agenda---discrimination against people who choose to smoke. Clean Air Emporia now needs to lick their wounds, regroup, and direct all that pent up formerly misguided energy toward a legitimate cause such as AIDS prevention, literacy, or more strict admission requirements to join the country club, and stop persecuting innocent smokers just because they deem their habit to be unattractive. Good job, everyone. Thanks for your input. And one last thought: Anti-smoking control is not about smoking; it's about control.
Posted by Penny (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please re-read the response from Momus and try for a minute to consider the other side of the issue. I certainly do understand a smoker's fear of not being able to light up when needed, as a former smoker I remember that horrible urgent craving, not fun! I have no particular interest personally in being able to go into a smoke-free bar since that's a pretty rare event for me these days (been there, done that),but I support non-smoking persons who do wish to be part of that scene. I also do worry about employees who are subjected to hours of this. I have taken care of people who are dying from respiratory disease and it is a horrific way to die. It is one thing entirely to do that to yourself (and I may very well pay the price for my youthful actions) it's another thing entirely to do that to someone else.
I wish I were as articulate as "momus", very well said without being inflammatory or judgemental which is a rarity in this format.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Penny: I don't worry about employees who work in smoking environments. First, according to OHSA studies, they couldn't possibly be exposed to enough second-hand smoke to harm them. Second, they could work somewhere else. I don't want to be exposed to coal dust (a REAL health hazard), so I don't choose to work in a coal mine.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Penny: The issue here is not "fear of not being able to light up when needed". I used to fly nearly every week and spent countless hours on airplanes or locked in long meetings. I often went 8, 10, 12 hours without smoking and found it to be no problem. The issue here is control by deception, forced morality, and personal rights.
Posted by Penny (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you basing that OSHA comment on the previously posted link? It should be pointed out that the quote is not from OSHA but from a website that is made up of a group in New York trying to oppose clean indoor air. I haven't gone directly to OSHA yet myself but I have read enough to find that OSHA has not actually tested tobacco smoke, just the carcinogenic individual components. There are also far more concerns than just cancer (which is all "carcinogens" cause). Nicotine is the culprit in heart disease and I have read numerous studies that isolate nicotine in the urine of non-smoking employees exposed to smoke on the job (I'm sure glad I'm not a researcher, the whole urine-thing doesn't sound like much fun!)
Most people I know who bartend do it because it's the best paying job they can get in the evening when they're not in school. I know that doesn't apply to all, I'm just speaking of the ones I am acquainted with. I'm not in the position of having to make that choice: my health or a paycheck, but I sure feel empathy for those who are, whether they are bartenders, waitresses or coal miners.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Penny, for the sane, civil, and thoughtful reply. It is an emotional subject, to be sure. Personally, I wish we were all directing our efforts and intellect toward fixing our illegal immigrant problem or the ridiculous gasoline prices instead.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From the Center for Disease Control:
(Its Fact Sheet, complete with study references, can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statisti...)
-->Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.
-->Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.
-->Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.
-->Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.
-->Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.
-->There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.
Even without a smoking ban, seems to me that business owners could do themselves, their employees and customers a healthly favor by banning smoking and eliminating secondhand smoke in the workplace.
Posted by lildarling (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I feel there are people in our community who have FAR too much time on their hands. They seek out other bored, unfilled people and hold meetings. They sip espresso and nibble cookies while seeking causes to pursue to fill their idle hours."
At least these people are out in public, using their real names and trying to make a change in something they believe in. Instead of filling their idle hours by having an opinion on every topic possible (all the while bringing up illegal immigration). Hmmm...
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lildarling: Struck a nerve there, didn't I. I assume from your comments that you are anti-smoking but pro illegal immigration. Hmmm... enjoy those cookies.
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 5:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp....
and
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005...
some quotes from those pages
"The bottom table is the actual St. Louis Park test results for 19 establishments of measured airborne nicotine* levels. You can see the median establishment, Applebees, had a reading of 3.3 micrograms ug / cu. M.
500 ug (OSHA safe level) divided by 3.3 ug (median reading Applebees) = measured airborne nicotine* levels are 152 times safer than OSHA regulations. In other words NO HEALTH HAZARD as per OSHA workplace indoor air quality standards.
It is therefore disingenuous to implement smoking bans based on the argument that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, that argument has been scientifically proven false."
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 5:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp....
Environmental Tobacco Smoke "In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)"
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lildarling says, "At least these people are out in public, using their real names and trying to make a change in something they believe in. Instead of filling their idle hours by having an opinion on every topic possible (all the while bringing up illegal immigration). Hmmm..."
Tell you what Lil, I've seen over and over again how many of the folks who have opinions on this forum are deep thinkers who almost always give constructive criticism and valuable food for thought. Speaking for myself as one who gives opinions frequently, it does not take me "idle hours" to post a view, only minutes. It's amazing how much one can accomplish in a day and still post an opinion on this forum.
This forum is a valuable place for DISCERNING people to exchange ideas and views. Such is the nature of living in a democracy. I'd much rather read others' opinions and post my own than be the exact opposite which is to just conform, roll over, and accept the status quo. BARF, that is for weak namby-pamby followers. This country was not built by them.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kstrebuchet and others: For the record, here is what the entire section by OSHA states...Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.
For further information to offer to employers/employees as guidance, you may wish to review a document published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the health effects from environmental tobacco smoke, A Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Additional information on indoor air quality in general can be found on the Indoor Air Quality Technical Links page on the OSHA website.
We hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The OSHA statement refers to "in normal situations," but does not define normal.
Notice that OSHA does refer employers and employees to an EPA document on passive smoking. In summary, that report "concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children."
It also states that "Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, EPA has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the U.S. presents a serious and substantial public health risk."
The EPA report can be found at http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs....
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kstrebuchet, in light of what the CDC and EPA (as cited by OSHA) have stated, how can you say that the argument that secondhand smoke is a health hazard has been scientifically proven false?
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
smith_ron, The statement was from the web page link I posted,not my words. And please ask yourself, If OSHA had guidelines in place stating secondhand smoke in the workplace was dangerous beyond personal safety, why is it still allowed to happen? the answer. OSHA and the EPA see no need to interfere because they feel it is not dangerous enough to do anything about it and they feel the decision to have a smoking vs non smoking business should be left up to the owners Not the Government. Seems simply enough to grasp that concept I would think.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But the EPA does say it is a significant health risk, and OSHA refers to the EPA document.
And OSHA also has stated that it dropped its inactive enforcment in 2001 because businesses were already headed in the direction of bans in the workplace.
Posted by Kstrebuchet (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems we said the same thing Smith Ron
" OSHA also has stated that it dropped its inactive enforcment in 2001 because businesses were already headed in the direction of bans in the workplace." and I said
"OSHA and the EPA see no need to interfere because they feel it is not dangerous enough to do anything about it and they feel the decision to have a smoking vs non smoking business should be left up to the owners"
Seems to be the same thing to me, OSHA is not doing anything about it because businesses are already doing what needs to be done. making their own choices.
been good talking to ya.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, we did not say the same thing...not even close.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on April 28, 2008 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Time to move the discussion:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...
Gwen Larson
Managing Editor