Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

BREATHE AND DIE

By:  Terry Gray

The Louisville City Council is once again entertaining the idea of banning smoking in restaurants.  I haven’t seen the proposed ordinance as yet, but there is a good possibility that bars will be excluded at first but other private businesses will be caught in this oppressive legislation.  The City Council is looking at the economics and health factors of smoking before making a decision.

Why do they want to ban smoking in restaurants?  Mostly because our leaders don’t want to be left behind, and they feel that not having a ban is like not having a thriving, world class downtown.  Anti smoking groups estimate that 1700 to 1900 communities in America have passed smoking bans.  Figuring based on 50 states, 34 to 38 communities in each state would have to have banned smoking.  That is a skewed stat.  Many communities such as Louisville contain smaller communities within their confines.  Should Louisville enact a smoking ban, the nannies can claim many more communities have fallen victim simply by adding all the little communities that are within Louisville’s jurisdiction.  Who cares that PRP Kentucky has a smoking ban?  Of course also included in the community ban figure are all the communities that were swallowed by statewide bans.  Those communities had no choice in the matter.

At a recent Ad Hoc meeting in Louisville, David Jones spoke on behalf of Humana.  He said that smoking and the effects of smoking give the city a “terrible image”.  So while seeking information on the economic and health effects of passing a smoking ban, the city council is accepting input on image, too.  While the economic and health effects of smoking bans contain much skewed data to benefit the smoking nannies, image is subjective - nothing but pure opinion.  There is no place for this in a fact-finding Ad Hoc meeting.

Another businessman mimicked Jones.  He said that allowing smoking in “public places” makes Louisville appear backward and unattractive to corporate business.  We need to change our “image”.

A spokesman for Kindred Healthcare in Louisville said that many of the patients that are served by Kindred Healthcare are smokers.  He said he feels that the effects of smoking are substantial enough to justify a ban or some kind of restriction.  When asked if smoking is allowed at his corporate office he answered “yes” and at all of Kindred Healthcare locations.  They have separate, ventilated smoking rooms.

So if Kindred Healthcare feels so strongly about smoking in the workplace, why does it take a law to force them to ban smoking in their own workplace?  Why don’t they take the initiative and do this on their own?  By not enacting a workplace ban, Kindred Healthcare is demonstrating a lack of responsibility for community health.  Given that they feel that smoking is bad enough for a ban to be enacted, they should step up to the plate to protect the health of the community.  Why don’t they?  They don’t because 70% of their patients are smokers, and allowing the law to do the dirty work takes them out of the loop in terms of alienating their customers.  This is a purely selfish stance.   

For the record, Metro government has smoking areas and an ordinance to support them.  How can the city require that private businesses ban smoking while property that is truly public allows it?

If you have ever taken your car to the garage for service, you’ve probably watched from the waiting room while they pulled your car into a bay next to several other cars and then shut the overhead door.  The cars in this enclosed environment are started periodically and allowed to run while the mechanics work on them without respirators.  How is it that government doesn’t consider restricting this type of hazardous workplace?  (Editor’s note:  Cars in garages are connected to exhaust systems, which protect the workers and customers from carbon monoxide poisoning.  Operating a car in an enclosed garage without such a system is deadly and should never be done.)

This is just one example of the inconsistencies of such regulations.  There are many environments in our communities where workers and customers are at risk of breathing noxious pollutants.  Self-serve gas pumps, dry cleaners, beauty salons, welding shops, restaurant kitchens, and even public and private swimming pools, are inundated with fumes, and many of these environments are not ventilated.

While ventilation seems like a good idea to reduce or eliminate toxic fumes from our businesses, it is acceptable for all but tobacco smoke.  According to anti-tobacco forces, tobacco smoke requires tornadic winds to dispel it.  Even smoking outdoors has come under fire for several reasons.

Stan Glantz, a UCSF researcher came up with a far-fetched notion that outdoor tobacco smoke rises up to a certain level above the heads of smokers then forms into a cone and descends on people who are far away from the smokers.  If there are winds, the cone of toxic tobacco smoke maintains its formation and drifts along with the wind to descend upon unsuspecting victims in Omaha, Helena, and the Ukraine.  Yes Stan, and we can appease the Gods by offering them fresh human hearts.

In many cities, antismoking forces ran smokers outdoors -- their claimed objective.  But as soon as smokers huddled together around entrances to bars and restaurants, antismoking forces began complaining that non-smokers had to walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke in order the enter the building.  Non-smokers aren’t the ones complaining.  Non-smokers aren’t the ones seeking bans.  Antismokers are the source of all the hoopla.  And a nagging question still remains -- who drove the smokers outside?  It is orchestrated, folks.

Antismoking forces use the power of the bandwagon approach.  When they claim that 1700+ communities have enacted smoking bans, they want the communities that haven’t enacted bans to feel left out.  However, the number of communities that have enacted smoking bans never decreases according to nanny claims.  You’ll never see them reduce their bandwagon number when cities rescind bans.  And cities do rescind bans or reduce the restrictions of bans. 

·        Columbus, Ohio is working to place their city council enacted ban on a referendum.  It seems that the citizens of Columbus aren’t as pleased with their ban as the anti smoking forces in Columbus led the city council to believe.  There will probably be some unemployed councilmen because of this fiasco.

·        Minnesota tried to push through a statewide ban, and it failed in the House.

·        The UAW stepped into the Michigan melee and said “No bans.”

·        In Missouri, Lambert Field in St. Louis has asked to be excluded from the ban.

·        Rhode Island has retreated from a hard line stance on smoking bans.

·        Athens, Ohio backed off from a ban because of constitutional concerns.

·        The Houston city council rejected a ban after boycotts were threatened.

·        Burlington, Vermont rejected a ban, saying that they don’t need more government intervention.

·        Appleton, Wisconsin rejected a smoking ban.

·        Oak Park, Illinois rejected a smoking ban.

·        Lawrence, Kansas is considering reducing ban restrictions.

·        Gorham, Maine city council members speak out against a ban.

·        Maryland Heights, Missouri rejected a smoking ban.

·        Louisville, Kentucky has kept antismoking forces at bay.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  There are coalitions springing up across the country that are fighting hard against what they consider punitive, unconstitutional smoking ban legislation.  Civil disobedience is becoming the norm in many places, frustrating compliance officials and making city officials seem ineffective.  Conventions are pulling out of cities, leaving city officials scratching their heads, even when city officials were warned.  Shipping and Credit Card companies are being caught in the war.  UPS has refused to ship tobacco products, and Master Card has begun warning financial institutions about processing payments to tax-free internet cigarette companies.  States across the country that have passed exorbitant excise taxes on tobacco products are suing tobacco users who have purchased tax free tobacco products on the internet, purchasers who have purchased tobacco products from out of state, and purchasers who have purchased tobacco products from Indian Nations, which are tax exempt.

Cancer research funding, formerly heavily funded by tobacco excise tax and Master Tobacco Settlement Money, is being reduced, as federal and state governments are using more and more of this money to reduce deficits and finance pet projects.  Master Tobacco Settlement money which was earmarked for tobacco education and youth smoking reduction programs has also been lost in general funds.  Without tobacco, all cancer research would be 30 years behind what it is now.  If you have been cured of cancer, thank a smoker.

Folks, the government and anti tobacco forces are addicted to tobacco.  Not the same way that smokers and chewers are addicted.  The government makes billions in tobacco excise taxes annually; states make millions in excise and sales taxes; and anti tobacco forces accept generous allotments from both state and federal sources, allotments that finance oppressive smoking bans.

This is a high stakes game financially but one that also has a much greater affect on the population of this “free” country.

Antismoking forces paint a rosy picture of the economy in non-smoking communities.  They tell us that “People like smoking bans” and that no market has been hurt by this oppressive legislation.  In fact, they have the audacity to claim that smoking bans are good for business.  How can this be?  When 25 to 30% of a population is denied its right to partake of a legal substance on private property, there is no way that business gets better.    Antismoking forces do accept the fact that a few smaller bars and restaurants have been forced out of business by smoking bans, but they shrug this off as the price of doing business.  (Are these the same folks who mourn the loss of Mom and Pop businesses at the hands of big box competitors?) At the same time they maintain that any death due to secondary smoke, an unproven statistic, is one death too many.  They seem immune to the cries of hospitality business owners who rely on their businesses to support their families and the families of their employees.  That is the true picture of antismoking organizations that pretend to care about saving hospitality employees’ jobs.

Antismoking forces will stoop to any level, look you straight in the eye, and lie.  They can’t help it any more than the Gestapo could help rounding up the Jews.  They are the elite, born and bred to rise up above the smoking dregs in our society and wipe the Earth clean of tobacco users.

After California’s smoking ban, there were interviews on camera with people sitting in bars and enjoying drinks.  They said how great it was to be able to go out without tobacco smoke ruining their fun.  Many of these people had not previously been seen in the bars where they were interviewed, and most of them were not seen again in those bars.  They were planted there for the sole purpose of propaganda distribution.

One way that antismoking forces doctor economic studies is to lump together economic information from take-out restaurants, other fast food restaurants, chain restaurants, food-only family restaurants, stand-alone bars, and private clubs.  By using data from restaurants that typically don’t have sit-down customers or restaurants that have traditionally been non-smoking and lumping this together with smoking venues, the picture of what the Mom’s and Pop’s will and do experience because of bans is tidied up.

So where are the business owners when all the fighting over bans is going on?  Why don’t our community business leaders come together and fight the crazy antismoking zealots?  Because even though our rights are diminished every day and smoking bans are popping up all around us, most community business leaders don’t feel that it will happen to them. 

There is another reason as well.  The nannies fully understand that seeking a complete ban from the get-go would bring out far too many business owners for them to fight.  City councils would have to listen to the owners.  Still they seek as strong a ban as they can get with the idea of backing off their overzealous demands when resistance is met.  They want the moon, so they shoot for the stars.  They typically will exclude bars from the bans in hopes they can nail restaurants.  This creates a divide and conquer atmosphere.  Bar owners feel that they have won and abandon the fight, leaving restaurant owners to fend for themselves.  Because many restaurants are already smoke free, the number of people protesting bans is considerably diminished.  However, once a smoking ban is enacted in restaurants, the nannies go after bars with renewed vigor and a legislative precedent.  At this point, restaurant owners side with antismoking forces because they realize that bars are taking a lot of their business.

Will we never learn?  With over 1700 communities enacting smoking bans it is easy to follow the cancer of antismoking forces as they seek legislation.  They leave a trail littered with closed businesses, dead futures, and oppression.  Smoking bans are just the tip of the sword.  They will be coming for more, and every time a ban is enacted they become stronger.  We are feeding our children to sharks as we go about our businesses.

You may reach me at:

Forces@insightbb.com

You can also check out our website at:  www.forces-kentucky.us

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN