Saturday, July 15, 2006

"To 2nd Hand Smoke or Not to 2nd Hand Smoke"

I don't mind your disgusting habits.
Do you care that you’re killing yourself slowly each and every day?
I don't mind if you don't.
Don't you care that your breath stinks?
I don't mind if you don't.
Don't you care that your clothes reek?
I don't mind if you don't.
It's your life and your choice.
I do mind however when I have to be subjected to it. Your smoking is detrimental to your health and completely voluntary. The only person holding a gun to your head, or more accurately to your mouth, is YOU!
This article by Pete Marcus focuses on the upcoming smoking ban and how it will affect businesses that have to cease their current smoking policy. My argument is that if the restaurant is non-smoking, the smokers can still step outside for a cig, the future cancer patient has an option. They can still enjoy dinner at their choice of restaurant. But if it is a smoking restaurant, the non-smoker has to subject themselves to known carcinogenics. I understand this is a free country and you should be able to smoke where you please…or at least it used to be that way. The other part of my argument regards the health and safety of the individual, which is why America and other nations are moving towards a non-smoking society.
I have had the conversation with smokers and non-smokers several times. Why is it that people believed that cigarettes and drinking are a natural combination? They think that the first alcoholic drink mankind every swallowed was accompanied by a cigarette. Smokers can play the card that states, "society has accepted over the past century that smoking and drinking go together". I will concur with them. I will also say that Hollywood for a long time glamorized the smokers in movies, it was cool to smoke then and in some circles now it still is cool. That was a long time ago before health studies concluded the ill effects of nicotine. Since society has said that it is cool to smoke, it is now saying that it is not. We are at a pivotal time that change is inevitable, and there will be people opposed to that change.
Drinking in moderation is fine; in fact the occasional glass of red wine aids digestion and has been proven healthy. I don't recall any study that has found "a cig a day keeps the doctor away". Perhaps it has something to do with people telling other people what they should and should not do, especially if it's the government commanding you to do or not do something in particular. I think people in general want that feeling of power; they would rather give orders instead of taking them. For example, I was riding the bus the other day seated up front close to the driver. A salty middle age female with a scowl that would make Ghengis Khan proud began to exit the bus. The driver let out a typical pre-programmed statement, "Have a nice day". She turned her head and fired back to him, "Don't tell ME what to do!"
I had one guy actually tell me that if I don't like the smoke, then I shouldn't go to those places. Why should I be limited to my choice of restaurant because people there choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle? Why is it that they think it is ok to subject others to cancer causing agents that they freely accept? Let's think about this, no more smoking on planes. No more smoking in public buildings. No smoking within 20 feet of the entrance of a building. No smoking while you are waiting in line to get into a theatre. Have you noticed that the smokers complain vehemently because they have to walk 10 to 30 yards perhaps to step outside and smoke? Why is that such an inconvenience? Get your lazy, overweight, soon be heart diseased ass off the barstool and go outside.
The cover shot for this article is a few people with a sign that reads,"Marlee Restaurant and Lounge, a neighborhood bar has been a smoking bar since 1957. Why change now!!" Perhaps these people come out of their caves occasionally to go to work and obviously to go to the Marlee Restaurant and Lounge for their recommended daily allowance of nicotine. When or what does it take to get these people to read the writing on the wall? They can't see the writing through that thick plume of dirty air. The cancer developing in their hearts and lungs must also be causing glaucoma.
There is a trend of non-smoking that is not only included in the US in major metropolitan areas or health conscious cities like Boulder, smoking has been banned in public places in Ireland since March of 2004. England has rules on smoking enacted by the Health department (did you hear that, a governmental agency that is looking out for your health). Smoking in cabs is not permitted as well as sporting events that have a "substantially enclosed area". In fact, even though Chicago area restaurants have until 2008 to allow smoking, some are banning it voluntarily. And restaurants that have imposed the ban said that they have not seen a change in their business. I understand that Denver is not Chicago and the Marlee is a small neighborhood "mom and pop" kind of place. It seems that the trend for non-smoking begins with the higher end restaurants and is working it's way down to the more casual places that perhaps one day find it's way to the "dives" where alcohol, smoke, depression and emphysema go hand in hand.
Thank you I think the smokers will not do anytime soon. In 5-10 years a healthier America will wonder how smoking was ever allowed in restaurants.

2 Comments:

At 7/24/2006 11:03 PM, Blogger Chris Gallegos said...

Ah yes, the, "Smokers are stupid, so we must tell them what to do," argument. The smoking ban has nothing to do with the rights of smokers or non-smokers. It has everything to do with the rights of owners of private eating and drinking establisments. This isn't about government telling smokers where they can smoke, it's about government telling private businesses what THEY can and can't do regarding a legal substance.
The guy who told you that you could choose to avoid smoking restaurants and bars has it right. No one is forcing you to go to that establishment. If enough people choose to avoid that establishment, then market forces will force them to change. Employees know before they start working there that smoking is allowed. They can always choose not to work somewhere that they feel endangers their health. Non smokers have always had a choice in where they eat and drink, just like non smokers. Private businesses had the freedom to choose whether they allowed smoking or not. Now self-righteous non smokers and government has taken those choices away. There is no choice any more..period. We all make several choices every day regarding things we like and don't like, places we want to go and places we don't want to go. This is similar to protesters trying to force fast food restaurants to serve healthier food. If you don't like it, don't eat there. The burgers and fries WILL kill you if you eat enough, but no one if forcing people to eat there. At least not until enough health nuts convince government that the only way to save society is to live like they do. It's about doing away with choice and stripping away the rights of private business owners. It may be legal, but it's not right.

 
At 7/30/2006 7:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a different take on the whole "Second Hand Smoke" debate, check out an episode from Season 1 of Penn and Teller's show, "Bullshit", on Showtime. Actually, check it out for an interesting take on all kinds of issues from circumcision, to recycling, to prostitution. Here's a link to the second hand smoke episode, where you can see a short clip. (All seasons are available on netflix).

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s1/shs

For the record, though, I gotta go with Gallegos on this one. This issue, like many others, is not about the actual subject at hand, it is about choice, and of course, politics. Now, don't get me wrong; I, like many others LOVE, and I mean LOVE to come home from a night at the bar of my choice without my hair stinking of smoke, BUT, I do fear the slippery slope of righteousness.

As for the argument that states that second hand smoke kills- what data are you referencing? Who was it written by? Was it peer checked in a medical review? Are you citing the 1993 EPA study? Portions of that study were thrown out by a US District court that "found the standards of objectivity that prevail in legitimate science were repeatedly violated in the EPA's risk assessment of secondhand smoke." Please check out this article by Robert Sexton published just after the court's ruling.

http://www.junkscience.com/feb99/sexton.htm

He states that, "for example, the evidence that diesel exhaust is carcinogenic appears to be stronger than that for environmental tobacco smoke. But in 1994, the EPA provisionally classified diesel exhaust as a ''probable human carcinogen.'' Would the EPA ever publish a report stating that diesel exhaust kills more people than second-hand smoke? Of course not. Bottom line is, there is evidence to support the EPA twisted it's findings to further it's own political interests.

What if it came down to the fact that second hand smoke is actually not as harmful as we think? The fact is, second hand smoke smells bad (to most people), but so do farts and cheap cologne.

Yes, a totally non-smoking society would be great. But, like Professor Sexton says, "should we use corrupted science as a basis for public policy?"

Smell that? That is the stench of science losing once more to biased politics. And that, my fellow Americans, reeks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home