Comments on: Legislature Passes Smoking Ban http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/ Politics in Iowa from a progressive viewpoint. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:48:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Thomas Laprade http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25023 Thomas Laprade Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:44:36 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25023 Reasons why I am against smoking bans http://tomneuville.com/index.php?s=second+hand+smoke Reasons why I am against smoking bans

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

]]> By: Thomas Laprade http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25024 Thomas Laprade Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:47:22 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25024 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. 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.

]]> By: Thomas Laprade http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25025 Thomas Laprade Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:48:47 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25025 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 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

]]> By: Thomas Laprade http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25026 Thomas Laprade Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:53:49 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25026 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 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

]]> By: Gavin http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25033 Gavin Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:25:00 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25033 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. 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.

]]> By: Chris http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25112 Chris Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:13:31 +0000 http://iowaprogress.com/2008/04/10/legislature-passes-smoking-ban/#comment-25112 "......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. “……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.

]]>