Tuesday, November 21, 2006

The Smoke-pire Strikes Back

...
I hate that I keep feeling the need to get into the smoking ban debate. Actually, what I hate more is that there is still a debate at all. But bad habits die hard and ban opponents are going to keep pushing back until they finally realize that their dirty habit is no longer going to be tolerated where the public can be harmed.

The Springfield city council tonight is going to consider two proposals that would, at best, water down the city-wide smoking ban, or, at worst entirely gut it. Neither option is acceptable to me but we’ll see what the council decides.

Meanwhile, the SJ-R published this hyperbolic screed by the executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association, Steve Riedl.

I have a few comments about Mr. Riedl’s version of “logic”.

First, the arrogance of his first paragraph is stunning:
How long can you and your family survive without a paycheck? A month, perhaps two months? This is what Springfield’s bar owners are experiencing because of the smoking ban. Their net business income is their paycheck - and scores of them have been without a paycheck for two months now. These people and their families are suffering immeasurably.
Really. How about the families of cancer victims and their immeasurable suffering? Ever watch someone die of cancer? Oh wait, I forgot according to you guys there is absolutely nothing wrong with second hand smoke. Silly me, stuck the in the reality-based universe again.

Then there’s this:

People know that these entities cater to this segment of society and that, while
smoking should be severely limited, society has to allow the use of a legally sanctioned product in a few limited venues. After all, our country is based on respecting and promoting diversity.
Oh brother. Now in the interest of “diversity” we have to put up with public smoking. Perhaps smokers deserve special minority status too. Let’s call it “smoking affirmative action.”

Our industry and this organization support a comprehensive smoking ban for Springfield. We have always maintained this position, despite being portrayed by anti-smoking groups and a few media outlets as the evil entity that would allow smoking anywhere.
Yes, I’ve always been very appreciative of your organization’s opposition to smoking in preemie wards and daycares. Come on, the argument is only seriously over restaurants, bars and other public social gathering places and your position has been to allow smoking in those places universally.

Again, employing logic, we all really knew these businesses would suffer. Most people probably hoped that the suffering would not be as extreme as it has been. These businesses have been forced into a crisis situation solely to satisfy a minority of vocal Springfield residents who have an extremist viewpoint on the issue.
A minority of vocal Springfield residents? Seems to me the stokers are the vocal ones and they are definitely in the minority.

Oh, and we have been warned:

Again, employ logic and reasoning. Do not rely on the anti-smoking propaganda
machine to make your decision for you.
As a card-carrying member of the Anti-Smoking Propaganda Machine I want to make it clear that I’m also a member of the Anti- Food Poising Reeducation Committee and the Pro-Stop Light Ministry of Truth. Just so you know.

On economics alone, the Springfield City Council should take action to grant narrow exemptions to Springfield’s smoking ban.
The economics of the situation will be remedied in the long run. The inevitable state-wide ban will help greatly. For those smokers who still stay home, guess what, they will spend their money somewhere even if it’s not in a bar. I know this because as Americans they will not save any extra money. Nope, it’ll be spent boosting another part of the economy.

Bars and restaurants, especially local ones, are some of the most volatile businesses there are. Many open and close here each year. Even if some closing can be (in part) pinned on the smoking ban, well that’s the cost of social change. The vast majority of establishments will not close and new ones will continue to open. There will always be a wide variety of places to eat and drink in the city, meaning many places will have figured out how to survive and prosper even with the smoking ban.

By the way, anyone looked at the parking lot of the newly opened Corner Pub at Koke Mill and Iles on any given night? They opened after the ban a few weeks ago and don’t seem to be short of customers.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lab animals don't get diseases from tobacco smoke.
We can see 90 year old smokers all over. This is absolute proof that the tobacco war is an exercise in junk science and political corruption.

While jerks like you enjoy the piddling ego trip of kicking smokers around, you'll squawk a different tune
when the same nazis come after your own lifestyle.

And they will.

Dave said...

Anon 4:14 comes across as satire but I think they're serious. Scary.

Anonymous said...

Having an opinion doesn't make you smart.
Why don't you run for president and see how many votes you get.

Anonymous said...

From Anon 4: 14

You got one thing right--you don't know anything.
And the reason for that is that you don't wanta.

ThirtyWhat said...

Whoa! This topic sure brings the nutballs out from under their rocks!

I was writing you a comment but it was way too long. It was turning into a novel ... so I'm going to write a post.

The short answer though is this isn't just about cancer in lab rats ... it's about quality of life. I'm going to post right now ...

ThirtyWhat

PS - Thanks for the shoutout, TEH! :D

Anonymous said...

Car exhaust, cooking smoke, paint fumes and a thousand other smells are no problem,but cigarette smoke turns you all colors.

Who are you calling a nutball, nutball?

Anonymous said...

For those who actually believe that smoking isn't linked to a myriad of health problems I have this recommendation - it's time to face the reality of your own circumstances.

The insurance industry is based upon actuarial science. Why don't you look up the difference between rates for life insurance for smokers versus non-smokers?

There is no liberal conspiracy here. It's based on probabilities, and the risk associated with smoking.

Try spreading your manure to the business sector who have to pay higher premiums for their employees health coverage each year.

Smoking kills nearly a half million people in the U.S. each year. It is poison. It is drug addiction. It is senseless. It is death. People who smoke are drug addicts killing themselves. They are so addicted they would lie, cheat, kill themselves, and members of their families to continue their "high".

If you smoke you are much more likely to die younger. It's a hard cold fact. There is no debate.

Some are spared an early death even if they smoke, but if you understand statistics you'd know that there are wings to any normal distribution curve.

You may have missed that lesson in grade school, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of smokers shorten their lives considerably by smoking. They also hurt their own children, and spouses smoking around them.

Why would any sane, or moral, individual do that?

JP