Search:
.

National Features >

  • Riverfront Times

    The Pope of Pork

    Old-school hog farming makes a comeback, thanks to some fine swine from Frankenstein.

    By Kristen Hinman

  • Broward-Palm Beach New Times

    The Lost Season

    Here's how you become one of those people who screams at his kid's coach.

    By Bob Norman

  • SF Weekly

    Border Crossers

    Transgender hookers with rap sheets are successfully fighting deportation--by asking for asylum.

    By Lauren Smiley

  • Houston Press

    Deadly Evidence

    First, Houston's DNA lab became a laughingstock. Then its controversial director was murdered.

    By Randall Patterson

City Pages - The Blotter

« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

Smoking Ban: still more folly!

Filed under: Drugs

no-smoking%255B1%255D.jpg
The U of M is kicking around the idea of enacting a campus-wide smoking ban. Officials say the ban might include all outdoor areas.

Now: we’ve opined on the ludicrousness of the smoking ban here before. In doing so, we’ve elicited many a skillfully argued rebuttal, which inevitably hinge on the notion that secondhand smoke poses a grave threat to unwitting victims— which is to say those unfortunate enough to have been kidnapped and locked in smoky bars against their wills for a sufficient duration (decades) to suffer the damages wrought by secondhand smoke.

(Though some especially skilled debaters have managed to stretch the definition of unwitting victims to include bartenders and clients who choose to enter a bar of their own volition.) Fine. Point conceded.

Obviously, that argument can't be applied to justify an outdoor ban: when a law endeavors to push beyond second-party concerns, when it seeks to curtail behavior that is unequivocally, 100 percent victimless—that is to say when the “offender” and “victim” are one and the same—it enters a realm of absurdity that, in a sane world, would hardly need pointing out.

It goes without saying that we don’t live in a sane world. So let’s be blunt here, and unrepentantly straightforward:

The anti-smoking crusaders who operate on this level are the ideological descendents of the imbecilic prohibitionists and anti-drug warriors that have plagued our nation since time immemorial. This ramped up anti-smoking fervor is merely the latest incarnation of our predisposition to puritanical meddling, our weird inclination to put our neighbor’s “health” before his freedom or—Jesus forbid!—his own debauched happiness.

The fact that today’s ban advocates describe themselves, by and large, as “liberals” (root word: liberty) only adds to the counterintuitive (read: hypocritical) hilarity of their stance.

Self-appointed Protectors of Other People’s Lungs are no doubt thinking right now: You’re forgetting about health care costs, Matt, you filthy apologist for the tobacco industry! Increased health costs affect us all!

But if cigarettes are as deadly as commonly claimed—I refer specifically to the much-repeated assertion that each cigarette smoked subtracts 11 minutes from one’s life—then the public money saved by the premature death of a pack-a-day smoker, simply in terms of averted Social Security and health care costs, far exceeds the funds needed to comfort him in the immediate lead-up to his untimely death. (To say nothing of the energy and natural resources conserved as a result of the poor bastard’s early passing.) So even in the cold economical sense their more rational advocates cite, smoking bans remain conspicuously imprudent, particularly over the long haul.

Truth is, the only profit offered by smoking bans is the warm, fuzzy feeling busybodies evidently derive from trying to save other people from themselves. “Look at how compassionate I am!” their subtext shrieks. “I seek to save people!”

From whom?! I ask you.

It’s hoped that one day their adorable minds will open to the fact that the moral premise on which they operate is every bit as poisonous and addicting as the “evil” they purport to combat. In the meantime, let’s watch their quixotic struggles with patience and good cheer. They are, after all, a well-meaning people. Which, of course, is why they’re prone to fits of paternalistic folly in the first place. In fact, if we—

But I’m afraid I must cut this pompous screed short. The time has come for me to step outside and ponder the Apocalypse over a delicious cancer stick.

Is that okay with you, sweet Puritan?

Posted by Matt Snyders at October 7, 2008 5:00 PM

« Obama outspending McCain on TV, except in Minnesota | Main | Fate of Petters freedom put off another day, three to plead guilty »

Comments

How did any of us from the WWII era ever live to see 30? Everyone smoked everywhere. When we were inside, tobacco smoke, outside, coal smoke.

Posted by: Bob at October 7, 2008 7:41 PM

I'll tell you what - I won't fart, if you don't smoke!

Posted by: EastCoastDoug at October 7, 2008 8:32 PM

"But I’m afraid I must cut this pompous screed short..."

Short of breath?

Bob Moffitt
Communications Director
American Lung Association of Minnesota

Posted by: Bob Moffitt at October 8, 2008 7:41 AM

Well Im a bar owner and I was losing my business by the dozens. One day I decided to switch to the alternative, and not only has my business bounced back but Im gaining more and more new customers.

www.Crown7.com

This company is a savior. I highly recommend them to anyone!!!

Posted by: David at October 8, 2008 11:30 AM

Funny, you sound more like a trolling salesman pitching a worthless product, David. I already did an interview on KMSP-TV on "electronic cigarettes" back in May.

Posted by: Bob Moffitt at October 8, 2008 12:56 PM

Can we take a break from the quips, Bob, and get an official position statement from ALAM regarding a possible campus-wide outdoor smoking ban?

Posted by: Ward Rubrecht at October 8, 2008 2:09 PM

While we haven't been directly involved in this effort, Ward, our Duluth office has worked closely with some of the UMD students to develop their smokefree campus policies.

The position of the American Lung Association on smoking on campus is spelled out in great detail here, in this new report:

http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7a8d42c2-fcca-4604-8ade-7f5d5e762256%7D/BIG_TOBACCO_ON_CAMPUS.PDF

Posted by: Bob Moffitt at October 8, 2008 3:58 PM

That Moffitt....what a stitch!

Hey Bob, what is the rationale behind OUTDOOR smoking bans anyway? SHS can't even be proven to be harmful INDOORS.

Just scanned yer little "tobacco on campus" pdf there Bob. Seems these campus bans are mostly about protecting us from ourselves as opposed to the myth of protecting others from our "toxic" emissions. Would that be correct?

Oh...and Bob....don't they give you enough to do there at the office? Seems you spend your whole day visiting sites like these where you can rub smoker's noses in your stinky little ban.

Well Bob, enjoy it while you can because the tide is shifting my friend. Slowly yes...but shifting.

Posted by: Rik at October 8, 2008 8:01 PM

I forgot to congratulate Matt on a well written piece.

EXCELLENT!

Posted by: Rik at October 8, 2008 8:05 PM

Seems my work is never done.

I just noticed that Dave was trying to sell his e-cigs here. Trust me....he's not a bar owner. He's been making the rounds of all the pro-liberty sites. Same exact "testimonial".

I wouldn't touch one of those things with a ten foot pole. Why would I when there are dozens of bars in the metro area (that I know of at least) that allow smoking inside. That's right Bob. It's outta control!

Posted by: Rik at October 8, 2008 8:12 PM

This is absolutely the BEST article I've ever read about the anti-smoking Carrie Nations who wish to rule with an iron hand. Thank you, author, for this terrific piece! When bans on legal products are implemented outdoors, one has to realize that it has nothing to do with health and everything to do with control. Carrie Nation died alone and in poverty. Is it any wonder? Who wants to be associated with such craziness.

Posted by: Pat at October 9, 2008 6:38 AM

Pat said: "Carrie Nation died alone and in poverty. Is it any wonder? Who wants to be associated with such craziness"

Kinda makes ya think, doesn't it Bob. I don't think you'd do well on skid row. Lotta smokers there.

For the rest of you....GET ACTIVE. Visit forces.org to see what's really going on and also pay a visit to banthebanminnesota.com and find out which politicians want to strip your freedoms away.

Posted by: Rik at October 9, 2008 12:41 PM

An excellent op-ed.

It is disheartening that our legislators continue to defer their responsibility by continuing to use such media friendly clichés as “the people have spoken” and “in the interest of public health”, or the ever popular, and emotionally charged “for the sake of the children” in a concerted effort to avoid any political repercussions that may ensue by actually taking a stand against a Politically Correct, ethically challenged “Public health” juggernaut that they know full well, but continue to rationalize and deny, is clearly out of control. The ongoing campaign of hate against individuals for a personal choice they have made is palatable, and inescapable. It is promoted at every turn, and in every conceivable form from tax funded highly insulting “truth” commercials, to media organizations that are too lazy to research for themselves, and rather parrot the same vile discriminatory junk science that lacks any trace of common sense and that is easily exposed as fraud upon even a cursory inspection of the available "facts".

The amount of money wasted in this effort to criminalize a legal product in use by adults on private property is obscene. Smokers across the nation are expected to suffer through the parading crusade of paper victims, and the effort of “public health” and their puritanical campaign financiers (the pharmaceutical industry) to readily accept the second class citizenship so graciously afforded to them without comment or objection because, after-all it’s “For the children”.
This new class of citizenry is also now expected to fund the next big step in socialized medicine through their continued purchase of tobacco products, as well as provide the necessary funding used to promote the campaign for prohibition that is a result of the same measures that supports Tobacco Control in the first place;...that's right,... continued tobacco purchases.
It is a shameful, vicious, discriminatory, prejudicial circle, and the self described "Health Professionals" that are behind the headlong rush toward socialism can not continue to have it both ways!

I understand that Tobacco Control Organizations are beginning to grumble about being called Nazis.
I can't think of a title that's more appropriate.

Posted by: LightningBoy at October 9, 2008 2:22 PM

It's always a good sign when the "commmunications director" of an anti-smoking group gets so rattled by a well-worded opinion piece that s/he has to piddle away funds by getting in some cheap shots. What, precisely, are they "directing"? They can't find a temp to do their internet surfing for them? This is where those American Lung Association dollars go, folks. "Communications director"... give me a break.

Posted by: GrilledCS at October 9, 2008 9:28 PM

I've adapted the below a bit, just for Bob Moffitt! It may not all fit in one post, but we'll see... It was originally written in reference to the sort of outdoor smoking danger studies that Bob seems concerned about. The particular triggering study was done by Klepeis and the playlet below really does not differ much from the reality, though some of the pyrotechnics may be a bit larger than life.


====

(Main Personas: Stanley Grantz, Jamie Disgrace, and Bob Morefatt)


Disgrace: OK... we need to come up with some kind of scientifical sounding research to justify these outdoor smoking bans. Too many people are laughing at us and my students keep giving me raspberries behind my back when I'm drawing funny pictures of smokers on the blackboard!


Grantz: Hmmm... ok... how about this... we've got a few million dollars still sitting in this year's budget that we haven't been able to give away to ANYone because we're all getting pushed into that nasty top tax bracket. But if we DON'T use it all we won't be able to demand a bigger budget next year!

Soooo.... let's do an experiment with some really expensive measuring equipment and show how bad it is to be around outdoor smokers!


Morefatt: Er... one problem... the machines aren't expensive enough to use up all the money!


Grantz: OK... look, there are five different KINDS of machines. Let's get one of EACH !!!


Disgrace: Good idea!

::scene cut::

Grantz: OK... we're all set now. Bob, you get to wear the machine sniffer-thingie right here on the end of your nose while you sit at this table. Now we'll have a cigarette sitting at this table over here five feet away from you and see how it goes....


Disgrace: Damn! Zero reading. :/


Rantz: Hmmm... maybe it's the wind direction... OK... Bob, move to a table so you're sitting directly where the smoke will blow in your face.

OK... that's good...


Disgrace: Damn! Still can't get a reading big enough to measure.


Grantz: ::sigh:: OK... it's all this AIR moving around out here causing the problem. Bob, pretend you just got to an outdoor diner and there are five smokers all sitting in a circle around one empty table in the middle. Now go sit there and let's see what we measure.... Ahhh! Finally! We're getting a reading showing that if you sit in the middle of a filled up smoking section that you might breathe some smoke accidentally.


Disgrace: Hmm.. it's still not enough to say anything bad about though...

Look, let's move all the smokers' tables together so they're all touching each other in a circle. Now Bob, climb over the tables and sit on that little chair in the middle, just pretend it's the last available chair in the whole dining area and you don't really want a table of your own, OK?


Disgrace: Hmm... Damn! The readings are STILL too small. ::sigh:: these tables are just too BIG! The smelly icky smokers are still too far away!


Morefatt: Well... er... the tables are just standard 30" tables boss.


Disgrace: I DON"T CARE! Get me some SMALLER tables! 20" ones! 15" ones! 10" ones!! We'll lick this problem yet!

::shiftingsaroundsings::

Grantz: Bob, I know you can't sit down now, so just stand in that little circle. Now, you smokers: you see where Bob's nose is? I want each of you to light a cigarette and hold it just 10" from his nose. Yes, you, right in front... 10". You two by his ears, about 8" from his ears. And you guys in the back just about 3" away... Goooooood! Now everybody light up!!!


::Mix Rantz and Disgrace with Morefatt screamings::

AARRRGGHHHH!!!

HELLLLPPP!!!! Get the FIRE EXTINGUISHER! Bob's HAIR is on fire!!!

::sprayspraysoaksoak:: ::bandagebandage::

::five minutes later::

Rantz: (Will someone PLEASE give Bob a tranquilizer!) OK Bob, we need you to do it one more time. Now this time you don't HAVE any hair so you don't have to worry about it going on fire, you'll be fine! Disgrace? Disgrace??? Where
ARE you Disgrace????


Disgrace: Whoops... sorry... I thought I saw a little tornado over in that flower pot and I was chasing it. OK! At last! We're getting some decent readings on what could happen to an innocent nonsmoker outdoors in a typical
situation standing in the middle of a tiny circle of people chain smoking!

We'll make Bob stand there for 10 whole minutes, measure what he breathes, and call this a "Cigarette Event".


Grantz: Now ... hmm... let's do some figuring... OK! If Bob came to this diner 9 times a day and stood in the middle of tight little circles of chain smokers for an hour each time he'd be breathing something that would almost sort of be like something in the air of a place like New York or Philadelphia or Cleveland or something.


Disgrace: OK! Time to write up the press release! Hmmm... Hmm... darn, these numbers STILL aren't impressive enough. Look, let's move this all into the living room and close up the windows to get rid of all this goddam AIR that's fouling us up.


Morefatt: Er.... Boss? isn't this whole study about OUTdoor smoking?


Grantz: Look twit, if I wanted your opinion I'd give it to you. We'll go indoors and just SIMULATE outdoor smoke with some fans, OK? Sheeeesh, it's the same damn thing and simulations are ALWAYS more like scientifical
modeling anyway! I used to simulate being a cardiologist ya know!


Disgrace: OK.... Bob, stand in that circle again! Gentlemen FIRE UP THOSE CIGGIES! Hold them close! Closer!! CLOSER DAMN YOU!!! Ahhh.... OK... good... we're getting some fine readings now!


Morefatt: Look Boss, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it would really help our press release if you could show readings like this from being around just ONE smoker instead of five.


Rantz: ::sigh:: Bob, you are SUCH a stickler! You spend too much time over on that Siegel blog! OK.... Look Bob, just sit here. Now look, I'm going to burn this cigarette 15" in front of your face here for 10 minutes with this little fan blowing the smoke right in your face. Yes, I know it's uncomfortable but we'll give you an oxygen bottle and you'll be fine.... just squint your eyes a bit and DON'T MOVE!!!


Disgrace: GREAT! WONDERFUL reading! Look at those numbers! Whow!!! Just from being exposed to ONE SMOKER in a simulated verisimilitudinalacious outdoorsy environment! Bob, you ready for one more reading?


::BOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!:: ::Mix of all:: OH MY GODDD!!! BOB's oxygen bottle just EXPLODED!!!! I ***TOLD*** you guys to be careful with those cigarettes!

Someone call the Surgeon General!!!


::scene cut::

Rantz: Well, let's look on the good side. We've now proven that secondhand smoke kills people and we FINALLY have a death certificate for evidence!


***Another Great Peer Reviewed Scientifical Study by Grantz, Disgrace, and Morefatt!***


===

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by: Michael J. McFadden at October 14, 2008 11:19 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

back to top

City Pages Insiders

  • Local food, music and news blasts
  • Free Stuff