6 Comments Add your own

• 1. Thomas Laprade  |  April 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

  Reasons why I am against smoking bans

  http://tomneuville.com/index.php?s=second+hand+smoke

• 2. Thomas Laprade  |  April 11th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

  There are two reasons for smoking bans and neither of them are about health.

  1. Quarantine/isolate the smoker.

  2. Denormalize smoking.

  Unfortunately, the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.

• 3. Thomas Laprade  |  April 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

  The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation from
  sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat
  of second-hand smoke.
  The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been
  spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved — the
  cancer of unlimited government power.
  The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
  menace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
  Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about
  the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or
  should they seize the power of government and force people to make the
  “right” decision?
  Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
  attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
  tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
  Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have
  actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
  offices — places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
  customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local
  bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
  negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
  The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question to be
  answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
  of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
  every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
  or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
  or divorced, and so on.
  All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
  consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
  neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
  be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
  his own judgment can guide him through it.
  Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
  smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and
  unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
  power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
  That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
  inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
  favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
  at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
  intrusion of government into our lives.

  Thomas Laprade

• 4. Thomas Laprade  |  April 11th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

  An alternative to smoking bans

  If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
  A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?

  There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

  As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

  Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

  Thomas Laprade

• 5. Gavin  |  April 12th, 2008 at 11:25 am

  There have been studies suggesting that employees of smoking restaurants are harmed by secondhand smoke.

  http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/04/02/72166409

  Can’t say I’m a big fan of the ban though.

• 6. Chris  |  April 18th, 2008 at 2:13 am

  “……the bill still represents a great leap forward for public health in Iowa.” Yea, right…

  The Democrats showed their true concerns for the health of Iowans during the debate over cigarette tax increase during the 2007 legislative session. An amendment was offered to ban cigarette sales in Iowa b 2009…and was quickly defeated by the majority party.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed