I'm incredibly disappointed that I-901, the state anti-smoking initiative, passed by such a wide margin. (Unlike California or NYC, you can't even smoke on the sidewalk in front of the bar within 25 feet.) This is another blow to concepts like personal property rights and individual responsibility, and a win for the nanny state. I'm not a smoker. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. I don't like the way my clothes smell after a night in a dive bar. But then, no one has ever held a gun to my head to make me go to a dive bar.
I don't buy that employees have no choice, either. I would bet any amount of money that if you only let vote bar employees and waiters/waitresses who work at the few restaurants left that allow you to smoke, the ban would fail miserably. This would be especially true if people actually knew the facts - that no study has ever shown any significant causal connection between ill health effects and second hand smoke.
The worst, though, are these latest TV spots - the ones with the scary puppet kids who eat dead, maggot-ridden roadkill and then try to make out with another scary puppet. "Kissing a smoker is just as gross." I've kissed smokers before. And while I've never shoved a dead crow in my cake-hole, I can tell you which I think is more disgusting by a factor of a bajillion.
When you lie to 11-14 year olds about this kind of thing (their target audience) they won't believe ANYTHING adults tell them about drugs, alcohol, or any other thing that really can harm them. And who's paying for it? We are, of course, from the unconscionable billions extorted from the tobacco companies by our current Governor that was supposed to go to offset the harm already caused to our health care system caused by RJ Reynolds' lies. It's ironic (but not surprising) that the people most self righteous about the tobacco companies' lies are so willing to do it themselves - and at our expense.
Smoking is a choice. Anyone who started after about 1950 and still didn't know it was bad for you is so stupid that they probably would have won a Darwin Award anyway. For the rest of 'em, they're exercising their right to control their own bodies and own risks as a free adult should, and any attempt to control that should be met with universal scorn in a free society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
There's no security interest - this is pure imposition. And I hope the first dive bar to close sues the state for compensation for a regulatory taking.
While I am generally opposed to this sort of mandatory imposition I would argue that this is not interfering with a fundamental right. In theory this is a bad idea but in practice it makes my lunchtime more enjoyable because the smokers will be forced to stand further away from the law school. I hate feeling like I am eating in an ashtray. There may be a need for a mandatory imposition of this sort of ban so that smokers will stand far enough away from the building so as to preserve the non-smoking environment of the building. There is not much difference in smoking in a building and smoking RIGHT outside the door to a building. I am sick of smelling smoke in non-smoking buildings.
For the sake of accuracy, I think it's important to point out that law creates a presumption that 25 feet is the necessary distance between doors, ventilation ducts, etc. Business owners can rebut the presumption that they need 25 feet in order to protect the public health and safety. Here is the text of the relevant section:
PRESUMPTIVELY REASONABLE DISTANCE. Smoking is prohibited within a presumptively reasonable minimum distance of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited so as to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter the area through entrances, exits, open windows, or other means. Owners, operators, managers, employers, or other persons who own or control a public place or place of employment may seek to rebut the presumption that twenty-five feet is a reasonable 36
minimum distance by making application to the director of the local health department or district in which the public place or place of employment is located. The presumption will be rebutted if the applicant can show by clear and convincing evidence that, given the unique circumstances presented by the location of entrances, exits, windows that open, ventilation intakes, or other factors, smoke will
not infiltrate or reach the entrances, exits, open windows, or ventilation intakes or enter into such public place or place of employment and, therefore, the public health and safety will be adequately protected by a lesser distance.
I think it will be interesting to see what information businesses actually have to present in order to rebut the presumption.
Here is a link to the entire text of the initiative for those who are interested.
Your study has three problems - first, it shows a correlation, NOT a causation (despite your earlier assertion). As you know, that's suggestive, but otherwise unhelpful. Second, there's no baseline to establish any significant risk. Third, it doesn't factor in other risk factors, like genetics, exposure to other agents, etc.
But even assuming it does, it's irrelevant because it's 100% avoidable. The difference between us is that I think individual adults are just that, and are capable of making their own decisions and ballancing their own risks, and that they do a better job of it in general than government.
The "lies" I was referring to is the assertion that kissing a smoker is akin to eating wet hairballs. Kiss a smoker. Tell me I'm wrong.
I'll address "activist judges" in a separate post. But regulatory takings doctrines are nothing new.
Let's all remember not to get too snippy - we want to dialogue, and debate, not argue. Especially if you're posting anonynously.
It's curious that you would cite only the weak part of the abstract. Read more carefully the studies (also from very reputable sources) in the link I provided. And then note that when the EPA tried to classify second hand smoke as a pollutant, it couldn't do it without breaking all of its own rules of investigation and disregarding certain data.
If you think that scientists aren't affected by groupthink, blind faith, and pre-determined opinions just as many lawyers are, think again. But like I said, even if I'm wrong about the science, it doesn't change the argument that it's an undue imposition on personal freedom
And we're all friends here. Just call me Orrin.
Post a Comment