Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Big Government Push to ban smoking in private businesses

Here we go again. While I'm not a big fan of ciggarette smoking, I'm less of a fan of prohibitionists, so I tend to root for the smokers out of principle.

Big government once again is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong telling businessses how to run their operations. They need to let the market decide on these matters. Some businesses are non smoking. Some businesses permit smoking. That choice should be that of the current business.

We have too much regulation as it is in Michigan. The last thing we need to do is be like the land of fruits and nuts in California.

From the AP

NewsFlash Home | More Michigan News

Lawmakers renew push for smoking ban in bars, restaurants
1/29/2007, 6:07 p.m. ET
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — State lawmakers are reviving a push to ban smoking in Michigan's bars, restaurants and workplaces.

Earlier efforts have been snuffed out in the Legislature for nearly seven years. But supporters hope a power shift inside the Capitol and momentum from a U.S. surgeon general's report will add Michigan to the growing list of states with tough anti-smoking laws.

"It's time for the Legislature to take a stand on this life-and-death issue," said state Sen. Tom George, a Republican physician from Kalamazoo County's Texas Township. He's sponsoring the legislation along with Sen. Ray Basham of Taylor and Rep. Brenda Clack of Flint, both Democrats.

Previous bills to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants never got a vote when the Legislature was controlled by Republicans. But now Democrats control the House and the Senate has a new GOP leader.

Advocates say their push is getting more traction and note that seven states, including Ohio, enacted tough anti-smoking laws last year.


bluzie said...

Air quaility is important to the workers and patrons of the business. We know far more about the dangers of second hand smoke. So someone who works there gets lung cancer from second hand smoke, who pays?

Bachbone said...

Actually, the research on second-hand smoke is not clearcut in either direction. Some anti-smoking research studies cited by the EPA even lowered statistical significance levels to obtain results they wanted (against smoking, naturally). The EPA and anti-smoking organizations are loaded with anti-smoking True Believers, and even the AMA has political axes to grind. (For example, what business does a doctor have asking on a questionnaire whether you have any guns in your home?)

If politicians want to ban smoking, let them do so honestly by saying they don't like to smell it, not by telling us it absolutely will cause cancer and using cherry picked research that substantiates their views.

Or as has been suggested by many, if the legal tobacco products are so blasted terrible for us, let politicians outlaw their manufacture altogether. After all, Prohibition was such a huge success, wasn't it? But politicians and lawyers stand to lose a lot of $$$ were that to happen, so they play 'Dr. Feelgood' by taxing the bejeebers out of and laying guilt trips on smokers.

(For the record, I'm not a smoker, but grew up with three siblings in a household where our dad smoked from the time he was 12-years-old. None of us got cancer from it. That's only anecdotal evidence, but it's as valid as a lot of the anti-smoking 'evidence' I've seen.)

bluzie said...

You are not making sense to me, public health and safety is a concern of our government. We use the best science we have. What hapened in your family is not relevant.

Bachbone said...

Actually, anti-smoking True Believers use the "best science" that 'proves' what they want to prove. They cherry pick the research that agrees with their views and ignore or pooh-pooh any research that disagrees with them. Some credentialed scientists have published research that does not agree with these True Believers.

What happened in my family is relevant in the same way some of these anti-smoking research studies were done. (It is "anecdotal" because we weren't part of any formal research study.) Families of smokers and non-smokers were studied. Since no one in my family got cancer, though my dad smoked, that would lower the correlation between smoking and getting cancer, lowering the statistical liklihood of second-hand tobacco smoke causing cancer. But some government researchers simply lowered (90% probability instead of the 95% probability generally used) the accepted statistical significance level so that it took fewer family members who got cancer in smoking familes to get "significance."

If the government is so concerned about public health and safety, let them ban the manufacture of all tobacco products. But that will never happen, because governments tax the heck out of the products, and trial lawyers, like John Edwards, rake in billions suing tobacco companies.

Liberal politicians, and some RINOs, just love "feelgood" measures, regardless whether what they do to make themselves "feel good" does any "real good" at all, no matter how many of our rights they trample. Kinda right out of the 70s generation. If it "feels good, do it."

bluzie said...

Oh you are so full of it bachbone I don't know how you read your posts without laughing.

If you truly believe second had smoke is not highly cancerous because your dad smoked then there certainly is no sense having this conversation with you.
No what just annoys the heck out of me is the blantant lies about Liberal politicians. The if it feels good do it was out of the 60's, try to get something right. It had nothing to do with Democratic politics, but the truth won't stop you from believing your brand of spin.

Anonymous said...

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) causes disease in non-smokers. Workplace bans on smoking are interventions to reduce exposure to ETS to try to prevent harmful health effects. The Irish Government on the 29th March 2004 introduced the first national comprehensive legislation banning smoking in all workplaces including bars and restaurants. http://www.chantixhome.com/