A couple of interesting notes about smoking bans being passed or in effect in various places around the country. First off, it seems they aren’t about clearing the air for non-smokers after all.
If you’ve gotten used to smoke-free bars, here’s a new concept to wrap your mind around: smoke-free cigar lounges. This innovation comes to us courtesy of Washington state’s voters, who recently approved an initiative that bans smoking in nearly every indoor location except for private residences.
The ban makes no exception for businesses whose raison d’etre is tobacco consumption, even if they have ventilation systems that whisk smoke away as soon as it’s produced. By forbidding smoking within 25 feet of entrances and windows, it even threatens to eliminate sidewalk smoking sections and quick outdoor cigarette breaks
As these provisions suggest, the real motivation behind government-imposed smoking bans is not to shield customers and employees from secondhand smoke, although that rationale is popular with the general public. For the activists and government officials who push the bans, the main point is to discourage smoking by making it inconvenient and socially unacceptable, transforming it into a shameful vice practiced only in privacy and isolation. . . .
Secondhand smoke is, in any case, not the main concern of those who promote smoking bans in the name of “public health.” Laws like Washington’s are “one of the most effective ways to provide the strong incentive often needed to get smokers to quit,” according to John Banzhaf, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health.
“We know tough indoor laws are a motivator to quit,” a spokesman for the Washington Department of Health told the Everett Herald. “We want to help people do that.” How could smokers be anything but grateful? — Jacob Sullum
Shocking. Democrats legislating morality. What will they adopt from the Republicans next?
Of course, they don’t see it that way. They see it as saving people from themselves. Unfortunately, you can’t force someone to not be self-destructive. Nor is it the American way to do so.
Second, those same anti-smoking crusaders have been manipulating statistics from places with smoking bans to try to prove their point.
Researchers in Colorado claim to have confirmed the amazing power of smoking bans to reduce heart attacks, a phenomenon first
inventeddiscovered in Helena, Montana, in 2003. You may recall that two local physicians, aided by anti-smoking activist Stanton Glantz, reported that Helena’s ban was followed by an immediate 60 percent reduction in heart attacks, a claim later downgraded to 40 percent. Now we’re told that the heart attack rate in Pueblo, Colorado, fell by 27 percent within 18 months after the city banned smoking in “public places” a couple years ago.In its press release about the unpublished study, the Pueblo City-County Health Department conflates correlation with causation, saying the data from Helena “showed restrictions on public exposure to secondhand smoke caused a sharp decline in heart attacks.” If this had already been demonstrated, why do any more research? In fact, the Helena data indicated only that the ban was followed by a drop in heart attacks, not that the former caused the latter.
The press release also obscures the distinction between reducing secondhand smoke exposure (the ostensible aim of smoking bans) and pressuring smokers to quit (the real aim). It notes that “the study didn’t distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers, but rather represented a combination of both smokers and those impacted by secondhand smoke.” In other words, some, most, or all of the drop in heart attacks could have occurred among smokers driven to quit by the ban. Yet the press release quotes one researcher who says “this study further validates the argument that limiting exposure to deadly tobacco smoke can save lives” and another who claims “this study provides important knowledge that people can be healthier if secondhand smoke is removed from public places.”
. . . In any case, it’s not at all clear there’s a phenomenon here that needs explaining. Hundreds of cities in the U.S. are covered by state or local smoking bans. I imagine the heart attack rate declined in more than a few after the bans took effect, went up in others, and stayed about the same in most. That’s the pattern you’d expect purely by chance. Identifying cities where heart attacks declined proves nothing. If these laws have the sort of impact people like Stanton Glantz are suggesting, there should have been a noticeable post-ban drop pretty much everywhere with similar restrictions. — Jacob Sullum
It would be a nice bit of manipulation, if it weren’t so easy to see through the smoke that the non-smokers are blowing in our faces.
Update November 18: What if secondhand smoke really isn’t a health hazard at all?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Nov 17, 2005
CigarJack’s Cigar Review Weblog. » Smoking bans not about health of non-smokers
Nick
Nov 18, 2005
Point blank – DRUGS THAT KILL SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Raspy
Nov 18, 2005
Counterpoint–People who make drugs that kill should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not shielded from it as it is in the current political climate. The tobacco industry has had it’s collective day in court; time to move on.
Zack
Nov 18, 2005
Everyone in charge of anything in this country is full of lies and greed, and they should all be done away with. The time of the idealists will come again, and there will be peace and prosperity once more in the land of America (like with Clinton). When the people with money become the people with political power, all effort goes to holding on to the money they have, making more money, and preventing it from being taken away. It’s these scum of humanity that deserve to have nothing, and don’t give me this “they worked hard blah blah” bologna. People need to start being nice again.
Michael Hampton
Nov 18, 2005
We’re all going to die sooner or later, and as soon as you get over that truth, life becomes a lot simpler.
“Drugs that kill” should not be illegal: People have the right to kill themselves, whether the government acknowledges that right or not.
People don’t have the right to kill others, however, which is where this whole smoking, alcohol and drugs debate eventually winds up.
The truth is, walking through a “cloud of smoke” every now and then isn’t going to kill you. It isn’t even going to blacken your lungs, as if you were really smoking.
Going into a smoke-filled bar, however, and staying for hours on end, every day, every week, for the rest of your life, now that might have a negative effect on you.
My problem here is that instead of choosing to go to smoke-free places, the non-smokers decided everywhere must be smoke-free, as if the smokers needed to be saved from themselves.
Like I said, this isn’t the American way. Take responsibility for yourself, and stay the hell out of my life and my choices.
Useless
Nov 18, 2005
I love an occasional cigar…..I think this example is an unexpected result of the law……likewise I agree that governments are trying to make it into a secretive habit done shamefully at home.
The_Drec
Nov 18, 2005
Trying to ban drugs or “drugs that kill people” will not work–see prohibition.
I would like to see a drug free society but I know that will never happen due to human nature and our inherant self-destruction.
So, I think that legalizing these drugs, including tobacco is a good idea. But, if you choose to do these drugs you will pay a higher insurance premium, higher health care premiums–why should I have to endure higher health care cost due to people who do not take care of themselves?
Again, I don’t need no stinking law maker/politician/religious fanatic aserting their morality on me.
Axslinger
Nov 18, 2005
Nick, your comment is off-handed ignorance. It’s not that simple. You’re letting the same people be the judge and jury. The same people that are making these stupid laws are the ones publishing false statistics. Guess what? You can get cancer from alcohol, barbequeing too much, too much sun. Shall we sue God because some dumbass spent too much time in the sun?
The mere concept of trying to protect people from themselves is called communism. Remember that? You say “Drugs that kill should be illegal”. Define “kill”? Some folks have lived to be 80 or 90, smoking their whole life. Would you say smoking “killed” them? Or what about the guy who never smoked but died of heart disease at 41, after taking vitamins all his life? Should vitamins be illegal? What about the fat ass who dies of diseases brought on from weight issues? Should food be illegal for him? If not, then WHY? Shouldn’t you protect him from himself like you propose we do with tobacco?
ScrumRob
Nov 18, 2005
I believe in self-imposed moderation. Smoke a joint on your birthday, if you want. Smoke a cigar sometimes. Have a gin and tonic in the evening. It’s when we individually do these things too much that we hurt ourselves, but that is what free will is all about. Harming one’s self is up to the individual not the state. If you want a place where you don’t have to smell smoke, seek them out. Same thing with smokers who want to smoke in public. Exercise common courtesy in places such as elevators. Don’t smoke while handling highly flammable substances. Common sense while thoroughly uncommon isn’t hard to come by.
The anti-drug laws have been about as effective as pissing in the wind. Another approach is needed. If something simply doesn’t work, continuing, is simply insane.
Communism has nothing to do with protecting people from themselves. Read about it, don’t go by old rhetoric. It didn’t work, but it isn’t the same thing as the
ScrumRob
Nov 18, 2005
what we grew up with.
Patrick
Nov 18, 2005
Living in Florida, I voted in favor of the smoking ban. In this state, free-standing bars and certain hotel rooms (and a few other places) are still allowed to be smoked in.
IO, killing yourself is not a “right” if a government doesn’t recognize it. There’s a difference between rights and liberties. Governments grant rights. If they don’t grant it, you don’t have it. However, it could be argued that killing yourself is, in fact, a liberty.
Which brings me to another point: clean air is a liberty. Smoking is a right. Liberties ALWAYS trump rights. As a non-smoker, I could care LESS what you do to your own lungs. However, when I’m in a restaurant (which every restaurant before the ban had a smoking section… which was one row over, without a wall separating it), I really don’t want to be breathing smoke. It’s my liberty to have clean free air. If you can’t live without a cigarette for 30 – 60 minutes while you eat a meal, you’ve got a problem anyway.
Once again, I state.. I could care less what you do to your own lungs, but as a person with enough respiratory problems as it is, I don’t need extra things going in there and screwing around with my lungs.
It’s an incredibly selfish point of view to say “screw you. I chose to give myself this addiction, so now you’ve gotta breathe it too”
That being said, however, I don’t agree with a smoking ban for the reasons of getting people to stop smoking.
Michael Hampton
Nov 18, 2005
Patrick, you seem to be misusing the term “right.” As defined in this country’s founding documents, “rights” are what you have whether the government likes it or not. What government grants you are called “privileges.”
Nothing trumps rights. Not in this country. They do in Cuba, however.
marcus aurelius
Nov 18, 2005
…Not about the health of non-smokers…..you’ve got that right……it’s about the bottom line.
……on Nicoderm sales that is.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-pay-for-advertisingwhen-you-can.html
Heartless Libertarian
Nov 26, 2005
“We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienalbe rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Rights are not granted by governments. Governments are created by people to protect rights-rights which exist whether a government exists or not. Ultimately, you are the ultimate protector of your rights.
I have the right to do as I choose on my own property. If I choose to allow others onto my property, they do so under whatever conditions I wish to impose. It doesn’t matter if that property is my home or my business.
Likewise, my body is mine, and I should be able to put whatever poisons into it I feel like.
Dec 06, 2005
The right way to ban smoking - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Dec 07, 2005
Chicago, Washington, D.C. ban smoking - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Jan 01, 2006
Anti-smoking claims full of smoke and mirrors - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Coyote Osborne
Jan 03, 2006
I can’t stand cigarette smoke. It stinks. It’s obnoxious. I believe smoking carries major health risks. I think it’s unethical for people to _lie_ about the health risks of tobacco, just to sell more of it.
I also think that it’s unethical to lie about those risks in order to force people not to smoke.
I happen to be a smoker. I’m a fairly heavy smoker. I chose to start smoking because it helps me think more clearly, and it relaxes me. It also makes me smell bad, and makes it much more likely I’ll have serious health risks later on.
I made my choice to start smoking, as a rational adult, who weighed the pros and cons.
I happen to have a form of brain injury that makes it very difficult for me to retain focus. Everything else that helps me with that problem is either far too expensive for me to afford, or is heavily controlled or illegal.
And I believe those things are controlled not for social benefit, but as social control – as legislated morality. I have a big problem with that.
But all such considerations aside – I’m against _lying_ to people to support an argument or to push through a law. If what you wish people to do can’t be supported on merit – if you have to _lie_ to get what you want, then you should question your position, or your ability to adequately defend it.
It’s my body. If nothing else can truly be “mine,” other than as granted by governmental authority (even “rights” such as property only exist as granted by law), I draw the line at my body. If I want to eat health food, or if I want to choke on cigarette smoke or eat rat poison for that matter, that’s my business.
Lying to pretend that smoking is more dangerous to people around me, in order to force _me_ not to smoke is highly unethical and dishonest, in my book.
Also, if you _lie_ to people about something that _is_ dangerous, they won’t be able to trust you when you tell them something _true_ about that dangerous thing – and you then deprive them of the ability to have good information to base good, adult, rational decisions on.
Bill Hannegan
Jan 27, 2006
How dangerous is ETS? My group, KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE!, helped beat the smoking ban in St. Louis by pushing this reasonable estimate by antismoking expert Elisabeth Whelan: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp
You have to challenge the junk science to defeat smoking bans. But it can be done. If I can help fight a smoking ban in your town contact me at:
hanneganlounge@safeplace.net
May 20, 2006
The news just keeps breaking - Homeland Stupidity
Jun 26, 2006
Minn., Calif. tests prove secondhand smoke not a health hazard - Homeland Stupidity
Jun 29, 2006
Surgeon General clouds tobacco smoke issue - Homeland Stupidity
Mark Greco
Sep 19, 2006
I don’t recognize the Government’s abilities to hand down rights to me. That only means that I would also be letting them decide which rights I do and do not have tomorrow.
Let the drugs kill people. There are far too much of us anyways. They want to give 16 year old girls the day after pill, 12 year olds condoms, and the Candie’s Foundation telling girls to dress up like little sluts, but not to give it up.
Why is it okay to kill somebodie’s chance at a life, but somebody is going to pass their version of morality via legislation over my head and I can’t enjoy a goddamned cigarette. Don’t do me any favors. Screw your drug free families. You probably already do…. metaphorically and/or literally.
Michael
Sep 19, 2006
Patrick,
I am an avid non-smoker myself, but a smoking ban is not the answer. Cities and states pushing smoking bans in all public places is a violation of civil right s and free enterprise.
I can’t believe that in the city of Chicago, soon all the bars are going to be smoke free. Bars for chrissakes. So the ‘health experts’ are going to preach the evils of tobacco and save me from getting second-hand smoke in my lungs while I rot my liver with alcohol. Well done indeed. Ass backward thinking and pseudo-reasoning like that are almost as bad as political correctness.
Joel Demers
Sep 26, 2006
Denormalisation in public health
It becomes more obvious as time passes that smoking bans and the whole antitobacco movement has twisted the truth about protection of non-smokers, for one thing. Once we understand, as we must, that there will always be a minimum of approximately 17% of smokers and that the actual victims of smoking are the smokers, according to the prohibitionists’ own data, it becomes obvious that they are not aimed at progress in public health either. What are they after then ? Awaiting for their answer, I submit that they are pushing for their version of the American freedom of choice: quit or die or be a miserable outcast.
Joël Demers
Public and media relations
C.A.G.E.
(Citizens Against Government Encroachment)
www.cagecanada.ca
jdemers@cagecanada.ca
“Danger increases with ignorance and apathy†visit: www.cagecanada.ca
Michael Hampton
Sep 26, 2006
It’s good to hear people are fighting for freedom in Canada, as well, where it’s even more urgently needed.
The answer to why, of course, was given away by the anti-smoking bureaucrat: They want everyone to quit smoking, for their own good.
While it is certainly good to quit smoking, the problem with it is that it opens a dangerous Pandora’s box of government intervention in every aspect of human life, ultimately allowing government the power to dictate every decision a person might want to make, on the basis that the bureaucrats believe that one choice is “better” than another.
Sep 28, 2006
“Ridiculous” Washington smoking ban may be scaled back - Homeland Stupidity
Morgan W. Dibbs
Feb 03, 2007
This whole “smoke free” thing troubles me, I believe it goes much deeper than that. I think it is a test to see how far we can be pushed, how many rights we will allow to be taken away before we revolt. I could be wrong and I hope I am…But I am not.