• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited

By Robert E Forman, Lakewood

Let’s say that I owned a restaurant that sold a variety of food that catered to a variety of people — both adults and children.

And let’s say that I developed a “secret ingredient” to add to my food that added, to some people, to both the taste and the aroma enjoyment of my food. That is, when cooked, my “secret ingredient” gave off an aroma and a taste that that some found “enjoyable,” while others thought it to be “annoying,” while still others found the aroma to be “foul.”

And let’s say that my “secret ingredient” just happened to be rat poison — not enough to kill or harm anyone outright or even in the course of a a few years; but enough to cause “suspected” harmful effects in a a fairly large number of people who would consume my food — or even breath the aroma — on a regular basis 20 or 30 or 40 years down the road.

Questions: Should I be allowed to sell my food? Should I be allowed to sell my food even if I disclose the fact that my food is “tainted” with rat poison? Should the government step in and either outright ban or regulate the presence of a poison in my food no matter how small the amount?

If the answers to the question are that there is no place for rat poison in food nor in the air that other people in my restaurant can breathe, then aren’t you trampling on my property rights, private property rights in general, and infringing on the rights of a free society? That last question was a paraphrase of a statement made by Art Armstrong in the Speakout column in the Saturday 3/31/07 edition of the combined Rocky Mountain News / The Denver Post in his opposition to the smoking ban.

While some people will not equate smoking with consuming rat poison, other people will. And the warning labels printed on the cigarette packages themselves are now used by the cigarette companies themselves to defend themselves from litigation from selling a product whose consumption does not lead to better health, but, instead, whose consumption may very well lead to, over time, the very health risks and hazards that are printed on the packages. And while there are certain tradeoffs we as a society must endure for the greater benefit of society as a whole, smoking is hardly one of them.

Yes, factories pollute and cars and trucks add to the pollution. But the tradeoff is that we have jobs, a high standard of living, and are able to go father distances at a much faster rate than the old horse and buggy. (And for those who yearn for those days, just try to imagine Denver with a million horses who pee and poop on the ground. A hot summer day would bring about a far different “aroma” to our nostrils.) (Ever notice how when a new housing development goes up near a cow or pig farm, the new arrivals start complaining about the smell?) While the manufacturing, distributing and selling of cigarettes has a certain “job value,” those jobs are replaceable simply by growing something else (like real food), distributing that something else and selling something else.

Read the warning label on a pack of cigarettes. If what you read starts to sound a lot like slow-acting rat poison, then maybe that is something that we as a society should outright ban or, at the least, ban from public. Let the smokers enjoy their “poison” all they want in the privacy of their own homes and let them and/or their insurance companies deal with any medical bills.

But the rest of us who choose not to smoke should not have to suffer and/or endure the smoke from those who do. There is no health advantage or benefit gained by breathing secondhand smoke; instead there may very well be serious health disadvantages and consequences.

READER COMMENTS

Hello All,

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think. Your honest feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

DS,

Since you like to lump everyone who deosn't agree with you into one category, I'll do the same.

All smokers are chronic masturbators with oral fixations. Most male smokers are closet homosexuals, and female smokers are a bunch of skanks.

There, I feel better.

I bet they not only drive alone, Mary, but they're probably the ones driving the big 4x4s and Hummers that add so much to the air polution. And they probably own the big 4000 square foot homes for a family of 2, using three times the amount of electricity, water and pollution than that of the average consumer.

They're just control freaks, plain and simple.

In answer to the questions about why is there a double standard with smoking and not allowing people to light up in a public place, is honestly, smoke infiltrates other's space in ways unimaginable. I work in the respiratory field and see it every day how someone who wasn't a smoker has suffered the destructive effects to their lungs because of other smokers. I am also a once in awhile smoker, so I do know how smoking can be a stimulant, as well as a relaxer. BUT, I absolutely can't be a party to polluting anybody else's air... Having said that, I wouldn't be against maybe special licenses allowing bars to have smoking "rooms". In fact I've read where some establishments have done just that with outdoor heated patios. Smokers just don't realize how their smoking does affect non smokers. They don't realize it because they are so immune to it, because basically they've burned up their sence of taste and smell. They don't realize how even just the smell on their clothing can be an irritant to others with respiratory and allergy problems. Even while outside in public places it can drift into other people's "space" and be irritating. How is it that you can justify that?

the no smoking ban will long be forgotten as the flood of laws governing how people must live, eat, use energy, and how children should be raised take affect. Curios though how gay adoption bill gets passes, even after the majority of voters said they don't want gay marriage, yet the legislature opened the door for the gay agenda (against the will of the people) to have judges make the gay marriage ruling. It is the double standard thinking of the left that allows the restriction of our rights to continue while at the same time offering additional rights and privledges to those groups who they believe have a right to require society to change for the. Much like a drunk asking everyone to clear the roads so he can drive home.

the majority of the public also feels that gay marriage is wrong,yet , the same non smoking crowd , that supports government telling people how to live, say the government can't tell people how to live with regards to gay marriage which in many peoples minds is equally offensive. which is it? Why is there a selective "about the public" standard?

Kathaleen,

One final comment about a comment you made to Michael, "and my point is, that if it only effected the person smoking, it would be a different story... but one cigarette smoker affects everyone else around them. "

Scientifically, a smoker would only have a negative impact on a non-smoker. What if a Mom & Pop bar could advertise "If You Don't Smoke, You're Not Welcomed Here"

That would be free choice, wouldn't it???

Kathaleen,

I realize a majority of Americans do not smoke. By majority, I refer to the Americans who do not want free choice taken away from them by the ever escalating encroachment of government.

By the way, the majority of Americans don't drink or go to bars either, but the liberal left hasn't banned drinking establishments...YET!

Michael if you're so loyal to all of your smoking friends, then why aren't they loyal to you when they're told "no smoking," they choose to stay home? That sounds like a pretty selfish addiction to me... and my point is, that if it only effected the person smoking, it would be a differant story... but one cigarette smoker affects everyone else around them.

Kathaleen-
"How selfish is it of one to say, " Well it helps me to relax and concentrate.."
Are you serious? I'm not running my offices for your convenience, and frankly not even for your benefit. Being in business is sort of for my own benefit, and my own family's benefit. I sort of think that since I put in the work to make a business, I ought to be running it to suit me, not you. Radical idea, right? As it happens, I didn't allow smoking before the government got involved, but I think it should be up to me. How selfish for you to say, “Well, it's the most convenient place for me to go, but I don't like cigarette smoke. So, let's pass a law that says those folks can't smoke at work, so I don't have to find a place I like better...” I don't come into your house and tell you how to live- you shouldn't come to my business and try to tell me how to run it.

Some good points Kathaleen.

But when I chose to quit smoking 4 years ago, I also chose not to go to some establishments because of the smoke, I chose not to be a waiter in a bar with smoke, I chose not to hang out around smokers.

The operative words here is "I chose". If the rest of America follows California, it won't be long till smokers can't even smoke in there own apartments.

Smokers no longer get to choose.

Larry, I'm not talking of prohibition, I'm talking of getting into a car after drinking and killing someone innocently driving on the road. And by the way, the majority of Americans don't smoke... adults AND children.

That's like comparing apples to oranges!! The thing is, they both do cause death when ingested. Some people have a cancer gene that when introduced to a "carcinogen" activates... Do you want to be a party to causing other peoples illness and disease? How selfish is it of one to say, " Well it helps me to relax and concentrate.." so too bad for the rest of you. If cigarettes were "invented" today, the FDA would more than likely either ban them or have the restrictions we are seeing being enforced. Now you may call that government intervention, but I would call that a government entity doing the job it is intended to do. But unfortunately, smoking was allowed because nobody knew how harmful it was back then. Like drinking and driving, which was not long ago considered not that big of a deal. Why is it that that's not being contested like smoking in public places is?

With alchohol related deaths approaching 100K annually and affecting those who are not drinking, the liberal left will soon outlaw legal drinking establishments as well.

Oh! That's right! They already did!

Amendment 18 of the US Constitution - PROHIBITION!

Repealed by the will of the majority of the people with Amendment 21.

For as long as the majority will not exercise their duty to vote, the minority will rule.

"While some people will not equate smoking with consuming rat poison, other people will. "
That's pretty much the problem with this letter right there. Some people will equate tobacco to rat poison, and others think it's a useful stimulant that helps them concentrate, pass time doing mundane tasks more easily, and enjoyable on top of the other benefits. Some people think rat poison is a bad thing and freak out when you tell them that's what the doctor gives your dad after his first heart attack (Coumadin is warfarin sodium, used medically as a blood thinner, used as rat poison to cause rodents to bleed to death internally.) The fact that some people relate tobacco to rat poison is really no more sensible than people relating Coumadin to rat poison, and has no bearing on whether it is reasonable to legislate whether or not I let people smoke on my property.

All of these analogys of food and music and this and that being bad for someone, that ought to be banned as well ( of course very sarcastically) hmmm... I would like to think that as a human race we are evolving to be more intelligant, rather than less. How does change come about if not for someone taking a stand and saying "I'm sorry if it's always been done this way, but my health and my children's health is more important than your addiction. .? " I am an occasional smoker, and I wouldn't dream of lighting up around a non smoker. Or in a public area. You say that it's my choice to go where there's smoking or not, yet even one smoker will pollute the air for maybe hundreds of people, maybe all non smokers... how fair is that? Your rights end where my nose begins!

I wonder why all the whinners like Bill Johnson don't complain about the Americans with Disabilities Act

At least you can still go outside to smoke at the Ogden and Bluebird - they wouldn't let me go outside for fresh air.

Our forefathers would be agast and highly angered at how far the words "public health and welfare" have been misused and applied to justify banning anything and everything. Public Health has become the new religion that is used to control just about every aspect of life and pharmaceutical giants like Johnson And Johnson have become the high priests who dictate the doctrines which, by the way, increase their mercantile interests, through funding tobacco control laws that support the $3.7 billion in stock held by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which in turn, grants millions to the anti smoking efforts of the American Cancer Society and state health departments. I think a really good case for non-ligitimate interest of government can be made and, how about the mercantile interests unwarranted and possibly illegal interference and influence in the enacting of laws that advance those interests such as the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act.

Is Mr. Forman seriously claiming that bars/restaurants that allow smoking do so only secretly? And that patrons are not aware of smoke in the air when they arrive for a drink or meal? And having thus been surrepticiously kept in the dark by the bar/restaurant owners that there were people smoking in all those bars and restaurants the patrons visited over the years, the poor patrons only realize that fact some 20-30 years later when they develop some ostensibly smoking related disease? Is he really claiming that?

It's funny how often analogies are trotted out whenever one is arguing for, or against, the smoking ban. I don't really like this analogy, because giving rat poison to people is illegal, while smoking (at least in some areas) is legal. I also find it odd that this writer uses a restaurant analogy, given that this hypothetical restaurant likely would serve the kind of food that wil contribute to our impending obesity holocaust with the next generation.
Aaannyway, I'd like to use an analogy of my own (not one I created, BTW): I think live music should be banned in bars and clubs. It's exceedingly annoying (you can't even talk to your date, for God's sake) and it's bad for your hearing, and other aspects of your health. My heart aches for the poor people who are forced to work in these bars for hours on end while loud music blares around them.
Now, a sensible person might tell me that I should simply avoid going into bars with live music (the whole vote-with-your-dollar thing). Sticking with the analogy, I would tell them, No, I am not able to chose what businesses I patronize anymore than people can choose where they work. Therefore, I need the government to step in and ban live music in bars and clubs.
This may seem one-sided, but it's how I see the anti-smoking crowd. They so often bring out an argument that, to follow, one would have to accept the premise that as an individual I have no choice over what businesses to patronize nor where I work.

T is definitely pro choice.

My biggest problem with a debate on the smoking ban, is that it's not a "ban" at all.

Smoking has not been "outlawed" and never will be. It has only been restricted.

definitions:
restricted - to confine within limits
banned - to prohibit or forbid

Nobody's "rights" are being violated by establishing limits on people's unhealthy habits. Society does it all the time. That's why there are speed limits, drunk driving laws, food handling laws, etc.

To compare pollution from cars to pollution from smoking is apples and oranges. Smoking is purely a personal choice, but driving is a necessity.

I love the following: "Yes, factories pollute and cars and trucks add to the pollution. But the tradeoff is that we have jobs, a high standard of living, and are able to go father distances at a much faster rate than the old horse and buggy. " The issue is that with that pollution generated by cars & factories, this past winter we in the Denver area had a WEEK with local pollution so bad that it was recommended that HEALTHY people stay indoors (and seniors, babies & and anyone with any kind of health issues were at even more risk) because the air was so bad, but nobody recommended all non-essential driving be banned (eg: police cars & ambulances would be on the road, but the police & EMTs should take mass transit to work - and the rest of us should either work from home or take mass transit). Both JAMA & Lancet (the British version of the Journal of the American Medical Association) have linked automobile usage with higher rates of asthma & other lung diseases, but I am sure the author of this piece (along with the every member of the vast majority in the metro area) drives to work daily, and (most likely) alone. Non-smokers could easily stay out of smoking establishments - but how do we stay out of metro Denver's crummy air?

replace smoke or cigarettes with say..alcohol, or coffee or say, gays people patronizing a venue..and see how your law stands up.
If businesses want to ban smoking that's their right and the free market will determine how well it does or doesn't do , by the customers that frequent it.
Imagine the uproar if the same principle applied and there were state imposed gay free zones, alcohol banned from being used or sold in public, or how about banning popcorn because it breaks teeth?
Government control over peoples personal choices is wrong and expands government control into areas they shouldn't be in.
Smoking bans...It's the first steps to communism and should be stopped dead in it's tracks. There are other ways, tax breaks for smoke free zones etc.
It is not the governments job to make personal decisions for people, period.

POST A COMMENT

• Save a lot of green by building green
• Signs of promise with ProComp
• Linking teacher salaries to CSAP a terrible idea
• Cutting costs key to health care reform
• Government control is bad for your health
• Banks mostly out of picture in the foreclosure fray
• GUEST COLUMN: Public service vs. private lives
• Choice of sexual orientation a day for celebrating