« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Jobs Obama promised to save to go up in (second-hand) smoke?

Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com where you may access all links not provided that are referenced in this article.

With their latest in the tank for a liberal Democrat mission accomplished, our local dead-tree Drive-By media (Charlotte Observer) announced a post-Inauguration “triple play” war on tobacco, which, if successful, would kill many jobs that President Obama promised to save (link at Examiner link above).

If the same strategy were applied on baseball diamonds, where real peril exists for catchers, the Charlotte Observer would have to call for a statewide (or local option) ban on America’s National Pastime, rather than allow them to wear masks (see Yogi Berra pictured above).

Here are the disturbing details of the Observer’s war on individual liberty and private property rights, but I repeat myself:

The 2009 N.C. General Assembly should enact a statewide smoking ban in public places, including restaurants and bars (or at the very least free local elected officials to take that step on their own).
The legislature also should raise the cigarette tax by at least 50 cents a pack and bring North Carolina’s tax to the national average.

Congress should give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco.

Grand slams beat triple plays all day long, so here goes.

Let’s start with “out” three: For decades now, every cigarette pack (and all containers of tobacco products) has been emblazoned with dire warnings of death from a General. Regulation by the FDA would mean an outright ban.

Now, for the bait-and-switch of “out” two: They want to ban a product while they promise tax revenues from the use of it. Most legislative proposals also earmark the revenues for health care, which always leads to later tax increases from more stable sources of income.

Finally, as to “out” one, before my “second-hand” home run (be patient, the metaphors will be worth it very soon), I find it quite telling that the most prominent argument used by proponents of smoking bans is that they must “protect workers”, primarily those working as cooks, bartenders, waitresses in restaurants and bars.

Yet, they don’t seek to ban textile plants. In fact, this same newspaper regularly bemoans the loss of textile jobs to countries overseas. Many years ago, the Charlotte Observer won a Pulitzer prize for a long series of articles investigating the causes of brown lung disease in textile workers. One of the results of that series was the increased wearing of masks by workers in plants where one would regularly breathe in cotton dust.

Why the difference in the case of food service workers? Do they care less about their jobs?

The reason is obvious: the issue is not about health. If it were, the problem could be solved by the wearing of a mask by the worker. The issue, rather is a tyranny of a majority mob bent on asserting its will against private property owners that saved the fruits of their labor to build a business. No matter that the free market has provided that 65% of the restaurant market is non-smoking already.

This is about ascethics as well. They don’t want to be served by someone wearing a mask, even though masks could be dressed up for anal retentive liberals (see picture above) who deem it their right to eat anywhere they want and control the air within.

And what do the Disturbing anti-Liberty newspaper and their allies offer as the need for the police power to prevent Winstons and Salems from being lighted inside bars in Winston-Salem?

Second-hand smoke.

And just in case one of us common sense holders questions them, well, they have “experts.’ And we know that science has never been politicized, don’t we? Al Gore said that half of North Carolina was “in the balance” with the rest of the Earth in his book twenty years ago with doom scheduled for 1998. Raleigh remains dry, unlike 10,000 years ago before Chevy SUVs roamed the planet, but I digress.

Expert witness number one is the Surgeon General, whose declaration they conveniently fail to date. With good reason too, since its over 15 years old. The Surgeon General also warned us a heterosexual AIDS epidemic that never came.

“Expert” number two? Sit down for this one:

Smokefree NC, a health advocacy group, estimates that workers in a smoke-filled room for one eight-hour shift are smoking the equivalent of one to two packs a day.

Yes, if you roll the stuff up in a cylindrical piece of paper and suck the smoke of twenty down your throat everyday, you might die from it in 60+ years. But if you disperse the smoke in parts per septillion and breathe it in, you are at the same risk? Liberals think we are all fools.

I have my experts too, with this 2008 report from Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr. (jerry.arnett@gmail.com) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.:

A 1986 surgeon general’s report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

In 1992 EPA published its report … claiming [secondhand smoke] is a serious public health problem … [But] the report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

A longer version of this essay with footnotes is available here.

By the way, ever notice how rare it is for a dead-tree drive-by media outlet to provide such easy access to their sources? I think I’ll put Dr. Arnett up against a “health advocacy group” with the Charlotte Observer’s fax machine number any day.

Back to baseball: I wonder who gets hit in the face more by the ball, catchers or Left fielders?

Care about workers?

Let them wear masks!

Before they come for your food, like they have in New York (link at Examiner links above and below).

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

For more info: ABC Health and Consumer Affairs reporter John Stossel on the myths of the dangers of second-hand smoke. (links at Examiner.com)

Property rights trump second-hand smoke

COMMENTS

  • Praying

    but I have to tell you that I have been so happy since Tennessee passed a no-smoking in public places law. My daddy always said the three most obnoxious kinds of people were reformed alcoholics, smokers, and prostitutes. I smoked in college, then after grad school I started running, and gave up smoking. I cannot STAND to be anywhere near cigarette smoke. My eyes water, my throat constricts, I hate the smell on my clothes. Other people’s smoke is offensive to ME. There is no way to get away from the smells (and therefore the chemicals) of cigarette smoke. Benzene, formaldehyde, ammonia, toluene, butane, hydrogen cyanide – these are just a few of the poisons in modern cigarette smoke. (There are many more chemical additives in current day cigarettes than in the ones 30 – 40 years ago). I’m as non-liberal as they come, but if cigarettes were to suddenly disappear from the earth, I’d be so happy. My son goes to school in VA and I hate going to restaurants or even hotels in that state – it is nasty, stinky, and gross. So there are two sides to that story!

  • janis

    My take is that private businesses have the right to determine what they want and don’t want on their property. If the State doesn’t want to allow smoking in government buildings, that’s one thing, but private businesses should be entirely hands-off.

    What happens when the State determines that red meat or sugar or any of the other things that the Left is buggy about shouldn’t be served or consumed in private businesses? Next step is what you can do or not in your own home. Give them an inch and they’ll take everything and send you the bill to boot.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    I’m not lacking smoke-free restaurants to frequent. If a portion of the population actually enjoys that atmosphere, then as a principled conservative, my belief in limited govt powers trumps my own personal desire to have my preferred smoke-free environment everywhere I go.

  • Praying

    but I can’t help breathing his smoke.
    You’re right though, there should be some personal responsibility. It was sort of silly that the state of NY started taxing regular soda’s more because they were “fattening” (they are, but it should be the person’s choice to drink or not drink them). So, I wouldn’t buy a regular soda in NY (being cheap and all, not to mention on a perpetual diet) but someone next to me drinking one would not bother me at all. It wouldn’t affect me. Someone next to me smoking, that does affect me. So in Tennessee, I don’t go to those 21 and over businesses that allow smoking, cuz I hate the smell of smoke. In VA, I don’t really have a choice – if I want to take my son out to dinner, I’m forced to breathe that yuck. It’s almost impossible to contain cigarette smoke so it doesn’t spread to other people, rooms, etc. around you. There is no such thing as a “non-smoking section”.

  • zuiko

    If you don’t like the smoke (or the cologne on the waiter, or the pictures on the wall, or the prices on the menu, or anything else) you can leave. That has always been an option. Restaurants had non-smoking sections or even went over to all non-smoking on their own to capture that business.

  • Praying

    If the economy ever gets better, I’ll open a smoke free restaurant in Lexington, VA. There are a real dearth of them up there!! What is it about college towns?

  • larueladue

    I am not a smoker, never have been, but I actually like the smell of tobacco and cigarettes, and I do not find it offensive. Smoky bars and such do not bother me in the least. (In talking with ex-smokers, your strong dislike of cigarette smoke is most likely related to being an ex-smoker… your sentiments are common among ex-smokers.)

    However, I think that any sort of banning of tobacco and its uses is a wrong turn down a very bad, bumpy road, with no good end. Don’t even begin to think that it would stop with tobacco and cigarettes…

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Private property v socialism.

    No one has a right bto eat any someone else’s restaurant. The law forbids race and sex discrimmination if the restaurant is large enough, but no one has a right to run another person’s restaurant.

    Or they shouldn’t.

    Amen to your comment, and in NY they ban certain foods with trans fat. The Edison light bulb is scheduled to be contraban in several years.

    and on and on

    They should at least have to provide just compensation for a taking!

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Private property v socialism.

    No one has a right bto eat any someone else’s restaurant. The law forbids race and sex discrimination if the restaurant is large enough, but no one has a right to run another person’s restaurant.

    Or they shouldn’t.

    Amen to your comment, and in NY they ban certain foods with trans fat. The Edison light bulb is scheduled to be contraband in several years.

    and on and on

  • Scope

    The VA smoking ban, including restaurants and bars, has been on the table now at least 3 times. It has always been voted down. I would like to share a thread on a VA website where an implant from Mass. is arguing that it is his “right” to be able to walk in any restaurant and expect it to be smoke free. He gets into the health issue, and argues that the workers are harmed by allowing smoking in restaurants, and, of course the workers can’t exactly find work in smoke free restaurants because of the economy and lack of jobs.

    http://rpvnetwork.ning.com/forum/topics/do-we-need-to-stop-smoking-in

    One of the best replies in my opinion-

    “Who makes the choice to walk into the restaurant, knowing there will be smoking? You do. But, you have the choice do you not? No one makes you walk in there. Just as well, the smokers have the right to smoke or not to do so. Your rights can’t be infringed upon if the so-called infringement resulted from your choice of being infringed upon.”

    My question Mr. Devine is, are restaurants considered “public” establishments?

  • Scope

    I also am a Virginian. If you are so willing to give up a “personal liberty” because you don’t like or agree with it, what “personal liberty” are you also willing to give up that you do like and enjoy.

    To borrow a phrase from a friend- “Principles are principle because they work every time, when you are willing to make exceptions, they are no longer principles.” What part of that do you not agree with?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    civil rights laws if they are of sufficient size, like motels. That means one can’t discriminate on race.

    But don;t you think my mask argument unmasks the fact that even they don’t believe its a health issue? If it were, they would be for requiring employers to offer or require that employees wear masks.

    It is about ascethics.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    3 times too, but more dems are in the legislature.

    We also have a pre-emption law that prvents cities and towns from having bans based on private property protection, but a compromise might end that.

  • Praying

    I guess it’s a personal liberty to not wear a seat belt, too, but I always do. I guess for me my personal liberty means being free from COPD, free from having a broken back from an auto accident, or any number of other consequences of not taking certain precautions in life. Now, I realize there are no guarantees – I could have been in the buildings that terrorists flew planes into on 9/11, I could be run into by a drunk driver while crossing the street – but I choose to minimize my chances of serious death or injury. That is MY personal liberty. And I’m not giving that up without a fight, anymore than apparently, smokers want to give up what they think is their personal liberty to smoke whenever and where ever they please. I know it’s a terrible addiction. I feel your pain. I was lucky – it was easy for me to give it up – maybe I was more of a “social smoker” but still, I think if your personal liberties infringe upon the personal liberties of someone else, they may not be your personal liberties after all (and I acknowledge that that argument could go both ways). I’m not sure. I just said that I’m glad the laws are what the laws are in this state.

  • baseketball
  • Praying

    I do believe ex-smokers are far more sensitive to smoke (and outspoken against smoking!!) than non-smokers, or it could be from the allergies I developed in my midlife. Even though you enjoy the smell of smoke, you have to know it can’t be good for you. I wasn’t making up that list of chemicals present in cigarette smoke. It’s your decision, but make sure you have all the facts to make an informed decisions. Tobacco is in many ways a drug – so where do you draw the line? It does seem a bit of a double standard that tobacco is legal whereas marijuana is not. I’m really not one of those enviro-nuts – for example I think the whole carbon footprint and global warming stuff is a crock of s—-, but at the same time, as a runner, as a wanna-be athlete, I try to keep myself as healthy as possible. It’s disgusting to be walking down the street and have some idiot in front of me smoking. Or to have to walk through the “smoking section” leaving my building at lunch. Those people have every “right” to do what they do to their bodies – I only complain when they do it in my airspace. So my liberty is someone’s tyranny, I guess. Don’t know how to reconcile that, to be honest.

  • olsmithie

    Personally, smoking causes me considerable health consequences and I try to avoid it, up to the point of having hurt some feelings over the years.

    That being said, it seems to me the government has no business telling a grown up they can’t smoke, or have to wear a seatbelt, or can’t have McD’s fries.

    The flip side of that is the immense health costs not wearing seat belts and smoking cause.

    Who should foot the bill?

    Just for the record, everyone quits smoking, sooner or later…

    Regards

  • olsmithie

    I worked at Allied Signal, (now Honeywell) for many years where I was forced to attend meetings in a small office with 4-5 smokers. To comlain was political suicide for your advancement.

    Regards

  • DONTREADONME

    I smoked for 15 years, and quit before I was 30. The pollutants you speak of regarding second hand smoke are dubious and linked to studies that seem to ignore the fact that those who get cancer from so called second hand smoke live with in urban and highly trafficed urban areas. Second, second hand smoke can only be considered dangerous if levels of concentration reach levels that are considerable. This means, if you work in a bar that is 400 square foot with an 8 foot ceiling and no air filtration and circulation and 50% of the patrons are smoking like 15 or more then yes your arguement has more weight; however, if you increase air filtration and circulation for the smoke conditions then you will probably not see effects unless you are sensitive to particulates. Lastly, in VA the bars and restaurants have seperate sections for smokers and non-smokers and they are filtered and the air is pulled out. Also, where do we stop with the banning? One thing about me, father smoked in the house my whole life from cradle to now. No respiratory problems, allergies or symptoms of lung cancer and I was exposed to excessive amounts of microwaves, x-rays and respiratory carcinogens, I will let you know when I kick the bucket after exposure to second hand smoke. Just some thoughts, go crazy debunking me.

  • stang

    Full disclosure and allow the consumer to decide.

    And in that vein, I am a smoker.

    I further agree with you GC, that this is a taking and should be compensable. I had this debate with a friend who is a bar owner several years ago and this was the solution that we came up with. It works equally well for smoking or non smoking establishments alike. Sadly, the California Legislature decided that it knew what was best for us and took that choice away from thousands of small business owners and their customers.

    Sign at the entrance:

    WE ALLOW SMOKING IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! YOUR ENTERING THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE MANAGEMENT’S POLICY OF ALLOWING CONSENTING ADULTS TO ENGAGE IN THE LEGAL CONSUMPTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS HEREIN.

    All these non smoking regulations are a perfect example of the myriad rules and regulations that deTocqueville warned about.

    ?After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.?

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  • stang

    Given the high degree of emotion associated with death or tragic illness, “It’s not fair, someone needs to do something.” will always out poll “I’m responsible for the choices I make and must live or die with the consequences”. It shouldn’t, but it does. And there’s always an ambitious politician with a government program to make it all better to take advantage of people’s fears.

    As government has become more and more involved in the provision of healthcare, ergo, they have intruded further and further into the personal lives and behaviors of the citizenry. The effect of these intrusions has been to create more and more distance between personal behaviors and choices, and personal accountability, which further empowers the government to intrude and dictate behaviors, because, they (government) are footing more and more of the bill.

    At its’ root, I would suggest that the problem began when the government overstepped its’ constitutional authority and began tinkering with with the free market to acheive politically desired outcomes instead of allowing free men and the marketplace to sort it out.

    ?You can’t run a society or cope with its problems if people are not held accountable for what they do.?

    John Leo

  • Scope

    that your mask argument definately exposes the fact that second hand smoke is not as harmful as some would like you to believe. If it was a serious health issue, health would trump ascethics. It seems that a customer patronizing a restaurant who has a bad cold or worse, who is sneezing and coughing, is more of a health risk than second hand smoke. So where is that argument. Are we to then ban anyone with a cold from restaurants and other places of business? Thank you for your explanation that restaurants (of a certain size) are considered public accomodations, that means to me that the owner gets to decide what he will allow or not. Of course, I understand that that can change with majorities in state legislatures. Currently, the VA state legislature has more republicans so maybe the latest ban effort will not pass again.

  • Scope

    and the company my husband works for makes all of the processing equipment for Philip Morris. I assure you, they are not going out of business any time soon. This may be a reason why the restaurant/bar smoking ban has never passed in VA.

  • Scope

    and the company my husband works for makes all of the processing equipment for Philip Morris. I assure you, they are not going out of business any time soon. This may be a reason why the restaurant/bar smoking ban has never passed in VA.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    will always be costs. People can only die once and to accept the concept that since we have govt health care that they can take our liberty is a major problem.

    Love the comment and esp Leo! Love that guy.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    agreement on “takings.”

    I almost won a similar argument in the SC Sup Ct one time in a different context.

    Also like the warning idea, but given the cases the anti-smoke crowd has lost, they have given up on the danger to the customer argument and now seek to protect the worker, hence

    the mask!

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    the police power of the state is strong and of course they can regulate cleanliness and health standards, etc but given that the power to tax and regulate is also the power to destroy, …that is why we have the just compensation clause and if a govt denies the owner the highest and best use of his property, it is a “taking” in my opinion.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    I am convinced the federal government should get out of the drug war and would favor legalization.

    Plus, my Dad, a lifetime smoker died at age 65 of lung cancer. It was his choice, but I miss him dearly.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    my Dad was lifetime smoker and died at age 65 and miss him. It was his choice.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    penalty of jail or fines.

    But I see what you mean.

    Given that I have chosen to work for me for 20+ years, I have a different perspective of workplace requirements. I didn’t like others telling me what to do, so I chose to leave those employers.

  • olsmithie

    If I would have had your foresight I would have done it much sooner, and been much happier, sooner!

    Regards

  • olsmithie

    nt

  • zuiko

    Just because something causes you to die earlier than you otherwise might have does not necessarily lead to increased overall health care costs. In fact it would generally lower them, since if you aren’t around any more, you can’t rack up health care costs.Everybody dies sometime. If you aren’t wearing a seatbelt and get ejected into a ravine at 50mph on your 30th birthday, that would be a cheap way to go from a health care cost point of view, compared to say, getting a bad case of Alzheimer’s and ending up in a nursing home for a decade or more.

  • stang

    Other than that, you are perfectly correct.

    Government is far more concerned with control and power than they are with justifications. Or results.

  • olsmithie

    Agreed, but I object to paying for someone else’s poor choices. (Acknowledging, presently, we do it everyday.)

    If you scare up the cost numbers for emphysema and other smoking related diseases, you’ll find they are substantial. You can have COPD and hang around, useless, for years. Really, its pitiful.

    If you choose not to wear a seatbelt, I think that is also your choice, but I object to your being able to get a million dollar settlement from me if I am in a wreck with you, that might have been lessened by a seatbelt.

    I don’t want to make your choices for you,(nor you for me.) I also don’t want to pay for your choices, if they turn out to be unwise. I see no reason you should pay for mine, either.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Regards

  • zuiko

    The problem with this is the “paying” part, not the “poor choice” component… in the socialist environment we are in today, you will pay their bills whether they make good choices or bad, and the good choices might very well cost you more than the bad choices would. If someone doesn’t get sick and die as a result of, say, overdosing on heroin, they’ll get sick and die from something else later in their life anyway. If people who didn’t make any poor choices were immortal and didn’t generate any health care costs, this would be a good argument for interfering in other people’s lives.

    Anyway, there’s no connection between poor choices and increased costs for everybody. Sure… in some cases those choices may lead to increased costs, but that is offset by the cases where those poor choices lead to decreased costs.

  • olsmithie

    I concur that the government should not be meddling in our affairs. The paying part as I stated above , we do everyday, just as the government meddling goes on everyday, despite our objections.

    I suppose the big question is what do we do about it?
    The answer, I think, is a microcosm of the “smaller government” movement. Give them less money and smaller bureaucracy and perhaps they will have less time and resources to meddle.

    If we keep pushing the conservative cause and have success, the “meddling” problem may get dealt with as matter of course.

    Thanks for making me think a bit more about this!

    Regards

  • 6eorge Jetson
  • Praying

    It’s hard. Especially now, there are so many things I want to discuss with them. Although my parents were staunch republicans – in a way I’m glad they aren’t having to live through an Obama administration!