Why did Pawlenty say no smoking?
After reading through some comments from the seat belt debate post, I felt it only neccesary to talk about the smoking ban.
First, let me state that I am no longer a smoker (it’s been about four months), but I was for close to 12 years, and the smoking bans have made me stand outside when it’s negative 20 with numb fingers and a Marlboro Light in mouth. So I do understand some of the woes.
So I moved to Minnesota in July 2004, and at that time you could smoke anywhere you wanted. And trust me, if there’s still the residue of smoke inside of Caffetto in Uptown, I hold myself somewhat personally accountable. (On a side note, if you’re looking for one of the best cafe’ miel’s ever, it’s still the place to go.)
Then on March 31, 2005 the Hennepin County smoking ban went into effect.
Now even at the time I questioned the fairness of the ban. Granted, I didn’t specifically say “I’ll make the drive to La Fonda’s in Eagan just so I can smoke,”
A few things.
First: There’s that EPA study again. It is amazing to me that 15 years after publication, and 10 years after its demise by a federal judge who found it totally bunk, the EPA continues to get away with quoting it. Then there is the issue of “3,000 deaths.” The EPA quotes it as though it were a huge number. Even if it were remotely accurate, does anyone else find it almost insignificant against the 57 million deaths per year in the world?
Food poisoning kills 5,000 people a year in the U.S. Should we ban food?
Second: You say “However, by a person smoking inside, other people’s health are at risk too, right?” Actually, no. Assuming second hand smoke is a measurable risk, it isn’t the smoke that endangers their health, it is the choice they have made.
Much like you don’t pay to see movies that stink, or read speech you find abhorrent, each person in America has the ability to make important health decisions for themselves. Anyone who is concerned about second hand smoke is free to avoid it in their lives. That includes making choices about what private establishments (restaurants, bars) they frequent.
People also make employment choices every day. If a person decides that the risk of working around second hand smoke (or elevator shafts or diseases or knives) is too great, they are free to find a job that doesn’t include that exposure.
We all make these calculated decisions in a thousand ways every day. It is only recently that government has decided we can’t be trusted to make these decisions without their help.
Lastly: Consider me the first person you know who travels to Wisconsin (where business owners are still free to run their business as they see fit and “no smoking” remains a valuable marketing tool for those that prefer it) to go to the bar. Call me crazy, but the last thing I want when I am surrounded by people having a fabulous time destroying their livers, is the wagging finger of the public health police telling me to leave the lungs alone.
It’s kind of a buzz kill, ya know?
Hey Liz, did you work at The Minnesota Daily? I was a sports reporter there from 2004-2006, thought I recognized the name.
PT brings up a good point about the choice to migrate to an environment where there is second hand smoke. If I have a friend that smokes, it is my choice to go into their stank house (good thing they invented Glade plug-ins). But I am curious if PT would choose to smoke around children, even his own, where they do not have a choice of their environment.
I think the ad campaigns were clearly promoting the adverse health affects of second hand smoke on children and the employees of these private businesses. And I will grant you that they are private businesses, and a better way of going about it for state legislation would have been offering tax breaks to those choosing to go non-smoking.
But again, I would like to hear those who refute the EPA study talk about second hand smoke and children. That was an important point in Liz’ post, and PT failed to acknowledge it.
Also, difference between someone sitting by an individual who is destroying their livers drinking and someone sitting by an individual destroying their lungs smoking, is that the drinker isn’t putting known toxins into their barmates body.
For the record, I’m a non-smoker with several smoker friends.
This is awesome. I love that the posts are getting comments. It benefits me because I get to hear differing opinions, so I have to imagine that it too is benefiting readers. And yes, I did work at the MN Daily from 2005 – 2007 in about every news beat possible. :) Thanks for commenting!
I wouldn’t smoke around my children regardless of what the scientific evidence of second hand smoke is. As Matt said, they don’t choose to live in my house like an employee chooses a job or a patron chooses a hang out.
If there is no risk, it is still an annoyance. And, like Liz, I can’t stand it when smokers blow smoke in my face when I’m not smoking.
I certainly didn’t mean to not acknowledge that fact, it just wasn’t part of Liz’s original post.
I would add that the harm from alcohol, and alcoholism, is far greater than the toxins in a body. In fact, an argument could be made that alcohol is far more destructive to our society than cigarettes as evidenced by familial abuse and its generational fallout, and drunk driving injuries and fatalities.
Cigarettes can certainly do harm to one’s health, but the harm from cigarettes is nothing in comparison to the societal damage done by alcoholism. Yet the idea of banning alcohol would never be considered.
I’ve always thought our obsession with smoking and smokers was coming at the expense of far greater dangers that are ignored. All you have to do is peruse any student survey to see that. We spend endless money and time getting kids not to smoke, while far more destructive behaviors – sexual activity, alcohol, and even drugs, are relegated to second class status, despite that fact that few could argue they are far more destructive in the long run.
most students polled will say that cigarettes are a far greater danger than the things I mentioned above. How screwy is that?
On the scale of things that do societal damage, it is hard not to agree that smoking is right at the bottom. Yet, because we now find smoking unsavory, it has become the focus of way more attention and demonizing than it deserves. It’s become an obsession in which we are driven almost totally by emotion (disdain for tobacco and smokers that has been well in evidence during this debate) and not at all by actual harm.
I won’t go into a huge story here, but please try to think of the smoking ban in regards to someone who’s world is opening up again. I have severe asthma now that I didn’t have as bad when I was younger. I used to LOVE going to the bar to dance, I was on a bowling league. In the past 10 years, I haven’t been able to go to bars, I haven’t been able to go to the bowling alleys, even going out to dinner at some places is hard. Cigarette smoke is a HUGE trigger for most asthmatics. It is wonderful to be able to join friends for a drink, just to be able to get out and socialize. I understand everyone wants and is entitled to their rights, but I think this is a topic where if you respect ones rights, it infringes upon another. Anyway you look at it, that is the way it is. -Just my perspective…M
Personally, I do smoke. I am very respectful of others while I do smoke. I no longer go to bars & restaurants because of no smoking “