JohnZFields: # the real story in #RVA isn't rain or tiger. It's caddy's giving Tim Kaine the finger about the smoking ban.
about 11 hours ago
nineonethree: If you were to break the smoking ban law, what would be worse: the fine, or all the dirty looks you'd get? #cwnews.
about 3 days ago
cindyblue: Which is a better excuse for leaving class early: it's a full moon, or need to celebrate smoking ban in VA?
about 3 days ago
GgoDnoopS: @ILLBILL1972 come to cincinnati or mad hatter in kentucky. ohio indoor smoking ban+concert=no fun.
about 3 days ago
aaronhoskins: Smoking ban in VA goes into effect today. No more smelling like smoke or getting sick after a night in a crowded bar. Woot.
about 3 days ago
Follow us on Twitter ...
| By OnMilwaukee.com Staff Writers |
| Published Feb. 1, 2007 at 9:43 p.m. |
|
I write this article as a lifelong non-smoker. I think smoking is a revolting personal choice that only accelerates the journey to your grave. It's unattractive, disgusting and easily one of the worst decisions one can make for their health.
But I am staunch supporter of smoker's rights. Yes, you read that correctly, I support smokers.
Do I support their habit itself? Absolutely not. Do I support government staying out of my daily life and making decisions for me? You bet I do.
A smoking ban is yet another stride down the slippery slope of government over-regulation in our daily lives.
A vast majority of Americans support a smoking ban in some form whether it's the workplace, restaurants, bars, public buildings, etc. Who wouldn't like the idea of coming home from a restaurant, or especially a bar, and not have to your clothes smell like smoke? As someone who frequents Milwaukee bars and restaurants, I can tell you that this is a goal for all of us non-smoking patrons.
While no one is arguing the merits of reducing smoking or the effects of second-hand smoke, the fact is that smoking cigarettes is a legal activity that is heavily taxed by our state and federal governments. This is definitely "feel good" legislation that even smokers have a hard time standing on their soap box to debate. Most smokers I know are ashamed of their habit and would do anything to stop.
The government has every right to ban smoking in public buildings because they (and the US taxpayer) own them but I feel it does not have the right to regulate how a private business ought to be run, especially concerning a legal activity.
It's exactly this type of over-regulation that has created the fashionable trans-fat bans in New York City and pending municipalities around the country.
Many will argue that a smoking ban will reduce health care costs over the long run for all of society which is plausible. That same argument could be used to defend a ban on all high-calorie foods of foods very high in saturated fat. Banning these types of food would ostensibly lead to fewer obese people thus reducing health care costs for everyone.
Instead of banning smoking in nearly all private businesses, why doesn't the government create incentives to bar and restaurant owners to make their own decision to ban smoking? These incentives could be tax breaks, easier liquor license renewals, etc. I'm far more likely to visit a bar or restaurant that voluntarily decides to ban smoking compared to those who don't.
Besides, if the crux of the argument to ban smoking in private businesses is the prevention/dangers of second-hand smoke, then why aren't we looking to ban smoking in private homes where children under 18 are present and not able to go anywhere else like an adult would? Shouldn't it be about protecting children first and foremost compared to rational adults who make a conscious decision to choose what bar/restaurant they patronize?
|
7 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review. |
Recent Talkbacks ...
Posted by CarolT on Feb. 4, 2009 at 6:14 a.m. (report)
Anti-smokers tell Hitler Big Lies. create their bogus "smoking cost" claims by pretending that costs paid by smokers were paid by non-smokers, that diseases caused by infection were caused by smoking, and that non-smokers' costs don't exist at all! http://www.smokershistory.com/BIGLIE.htm#SAMMEC Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure. PHM van Baal, et al. PLoS Medicine 2008 Feb;5(2):e29. Table 1 gives the bottom line: At age 20, smokers' lifetime costs will total 220k Euros, obese peoples' costs will total 250k Euros, and the "Healthy Living" will cost 281k Euros. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 And the real issue isn't "freedom versus public health," it's ANTI-SMOKER SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, which are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began. The EPA's own report says, "Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995." The graph on pdf page 65 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period. http://tinyurl.com/355p4d And the CDC says, "Despite the plateau in asthma prevalence, ambulatory care use has continued to grow since 2000... Increased ambulatory care use for asthma has continued during an era when overall rate of ambulatory care use for children did not increase." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad381.pdf And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban. http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html The government has no right to restrict peoples' liberty without a compelling justification. The anti-smokers have no such justification, so THEY COMMITTED SCIENTIFIC FRAUD TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC.
| Rate this: |
Posted by Mrs.DJtoBE on Feb. 16, 2007 at 3:07 p.m. (report)
Chris is sooo dreamy!
| Rate this: |
Posted by Shary on Feb. 2, 2007 at 10:07 a.m. (report)
You're so wise...like a miniature Buddha covered in fur.
| Rate this: |
Posted by ChateauDweller on Feb. 2, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (report)
I agree, well said Chris. You are dreamy.
| Rate this: |
Posted by LegallyBlonde on Feb. 2, 2007 at 9:41 a.m. (report)
Chris, After you pay for my dry-cleaning, let's go have a gyro and talk about the future.
| Rate this: |
Show me the other 2 Talkbacks
Recent blogs/briefs by OnMilwaukee.com Staff Writers
|
Rascal Flatts, Darius Rucker book Bradley Center show Friday The "American Living Unstoppable" Tour comes to Milwaukee on Feb. 26, 2010 as Rascal Flatts ... |
|
Castelaz draws honors for Pablove efforts Nov. 27, 2009 Former Milwaukeean Jeff Castelaz is ABC's Person of the Week. |
|
Summerfest to alter beer operation for 2010 Nov. 24, 2009 Major Goolsby's will no longer run the beer operation at the Summerfest grounds. Sources ... |
|
Jennings gets comfortable at Turner Hall Ballroom Nov. 21, 2009 Mason Jennings made a stop Friday night at Turner Hall Ballroom. |
|
Fogerty riles 'em up at The Riverside Nov. 20, 2009 For Rock and Roll Hall of Fame singer John Fogerty, the world of music -- whether it be ... |
| Top Clicks | Top Searches | Most Talkbacks |
- Smoking ban is fine, until its time to pay up
- What's the point of a smoking ban if you can ignore it?
- Diablos Rojos Restaurant Group goes smoke free until 10 p.m.
- Milwaukee heat index: September 2009
- After renovation, Blu will be smoke-free
- On the town in Milwaukee: Less than a year and counting
- Waving the flag for free speech
- Milwaukee heat index: May 2009
- Bar, restaurant owners react to smoking ban news
- Smoking debate leaves a few burning questions
