Smoking Bans and the Nanny State

Posted by :Drew McKissick February 26, 2009 - 10:25am

It didn't take long for those crusading for bans on public smoking to seize on the surgeon general's statement that there is no "safe" level of second-hand smoke as a rationale for such bans in the name of health concerns.

But to what extreme do you take the notion of "no safe level"?

Isn't it a lot like saying there's no such thing as a safe bacon double-cheeseburger? Could it be said that there is no such thing as a "safe" level of plaque in our arteries from eating fatty foods, and therefore fatty foods should be banned, or taxed (or their manufacturers sued)?

Given that far more Americans die from heart-related illness every year than from lung cancer, why pick on smoking? Because it annoys some people, that's why. I don't care for it either, but I tolerate it, much as you would tolerate being exposed to fat guys in bathing suits at the beach. (There ought to be a law!)

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 62 percent of adults think that there should be a nationwide ban on smoking in all public places. At the same time, however, only 18 percent supported a tax on soft drinks. So much for health concerns.

Those crying out for smoking bans would do well to consider how government control and influence grows. In a word: incrementally - and usually irreversibly. First this under the pretext of that, then this is later used as a precedent to expand influence into another area altogether.

In other words, those who favor a smoking ban but not a tax on their soft drinks are fooling themselves if they think their guilty pleasure isn't the next ox to be gored. You can hear the logic now: High-calorie drinks = fat people = health problems = increased medical costs ... so raise the taxes! And how much more so if we get that wonderful government-run health care liberals want?

If we ban smoking in public places, does anyone really think that banning smoking in cars with passengers, or homes with other occupants, will be far behind? How about a ban on taking your kids to McDonald's too often?

If the people pushing smoking bans really had any intellectual consistency, they would push for outright illegalization of all tobacco products. But they won't because a) the government wants the taxes that come from tobacco and b) they know they can't get enough people to move that far too quickly. But make no mistake: This is exactly what's on the minds of many of the proponents of such bans.

An inch today. A few more tomorrow.

What happened to taking it upon yourself to effect social change rather than looking for government mandates? What happened to personal responsibility?

Why not approach the management of your favorite establishments and let them know you can no longer patronize them if they allow smoking? If you're an employee, why not seek jobs only where you won't be exposed to smoke if it bothers you? And vice versa for those who want to smoke. Soon the social marketplace will sort itself out.

The mere fact that many businesses and restaurants already have non-smoking policies is evidence of that fact.

But too many people want to take shortcuts, and as a result, we're living in a nanny state.

Don't allow the bullies to lull you into complacence on this issue just because they're going after something that you may dislike anyway. Don't stand idly by while one group of people is being pushed around. You may be next.

We've got a nation of whiners who have decided they don't want to let the power of the free market sort out things that annoy them personally, so they look to government. But beware giving that power to government, especially on so thin a pretext, because it will soon extend to some area of your life that annoys someone else.

Then you'll be wondering what happened to common sense. And your freedom.

(originally ran in The State)

Recent Petitions

More Petitions

Follow the Outpost!

I am not against smoking

Submitted by gordman on May 12, 2009 - 11:15am.

I am not against smoking ban, I am against smoking ban to the extremes. Very interesting results on that poll, people don't really know what health concerns are about and everything seems relative here. Also I think we talk too much and do too little on smoking bans, a no smoking sign would do the job for us, at least a part of it.

Login or register to post comments
Email this comment
2 points

Does Secondhand Smoke Cause Cancer?

Submitted by greg estes on March 4, 2009 - 5:05pm.

Of course, what would one expect when you consume a cocktail of carcinogens. The problem is the free market will accommodate a minority of smokers if allowed... i.e. a smoking section and endanger these folks. I have no desire to control what people consume so long as it doesn't have an impact on my health, you know the public good.

Mr McKissick raises the question "Why not approach the management of your favorite establishments and let them know you can no longer patronize them if they allow smoking?"

Again, if I am an owner I will yield to a solution that yields the highest number of patrons to my establishment, why wouldn't I? Most likely a mix of smoking/non-smoking that will appease most, while unknowingly putting lives at risk through second hand smoke. Not to mention the infants and children that don't make the dining decision. Sometimes government action is needed for the greater benefit, free market rules don't always bring a desired result particularly relating to health regulations. What if we expanded that view...perhaps I should live by a power plant that doesn't pollute so much? No way, this is serious stuff, not a big mac attack. We'll deal with further legislation as it comes. This is a good deal.

# Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

Best regards,

Greg

Login or register to post comments
Email this comment
2 points

Smoking Bans

Submitted by Tony Tortorici on February 27, 2009 - 2:21pm.

Actually, there are safe levels for secondhand smoke. They have been established by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)and testing has found that normal restaurant AND cigar bar air quality falls well within those standards. OSHA established these safe levels after the Surgeon General declared 107 times in its report on secondhand smoke that the evidence of the research contained in that report was 'inconclusive' regarding the health aspects of secondhand smoke. Don't let the anti-smoking forces bully you into believing otherwise! Facts are stubborn things.