Restaurant Ban: Secondhand Joke
Virginia's new restaurant smoking ban takes effect today, imposing on everybody the preferences of some. Although more than 70 percent of the state's restaurants already forbade smoking, the General Assembly and Gov. Tim Kaine felt the remainder ought to be forced to do so as well. Henceforth, no smoking will be permitted in a restaurant unless it builds a separately ventilated smoking area -- something few will suffer the trouble and expense to do.
That still doesn't satisfy the prohibitionists. A lobbyist for the American Heart Association complains that special smoking rooms will "continue to expose workers and customers to secondhand smoke."
Well, yes. But why should they worry about that, when -- after all -- the whole point of the smoking rooms is to permit people to expose themselves to firsthand smoke?
Customers who choose to avail themselves of smoking rooms know what they're doing. The new law also eliminates the employee-health rationale, since it no longer will be possible to argue that waitstaff are forced to expose themselves to secondhand smoke because of a lack of employment alternatives.
Supporters of the new law have been very clear about why non-smokers should not have to endure cigarette fumes while they eat. But they have not been at all clear about why non-smokers must be accommodated by divisions within each individual restaurant, rather than by divisions among restaurants.
Patrons formerly sorted themselves into smoking and non-smoking groups by choosing between Restaurant A and Restaurant B. Now patrons will sort themselves by choosing between Door 1 or Door 2 inside those few restaurants where smoking is still permitted. As for the rest, consumers will no longer have any choice at all.'Twas a famous victory.
Reader Reactions
Like health insurance reform, this is yet another social problem for the RT-D editorial board to massively resist. Has this newspaper ever been on the winning side of an American social movement? If they support choice so much why don’t they support the consumer’s choice to smoke marijuana?
“Imposing on everybody the preferences of some? Are you serious? The “some” you refer to are the 80% of Virginians who do not smoke. Looks like the majority to me.“
So, are you simply too inept to choose one of the 70% of restaurants who had already chosen for business reasons to go completely non-smoking? Or do you always wait for the government to tell you what is best for you?
Imposing on everybody the preferences of some? Are you serious? The “some” you refer to are the 80% of Virginians who do not smoke. Looks like the majority to me.
@Alfred
I am delighted you have finally discovered the shower, did you have some soap to hand too. You know the slippery stuff that helps clean you? Don’t forget to wash behind your ears.
I don’t want to appear dumb but tell me what would of been the state of your fragrance levels if you had chosen to exercise your Consitutional and fiscal right and not enter that bar?
I had a wonderful smoke free night. And the best thing was that I didn’t have to take a shower when I got home from the bars!
The tactic of deny deny deny is desperate and foolish. Even the tobacco companies acknowledge that rules should be made to protect people from second hand smoke.
There are still people who say aliens landed in Rosewell. I can’t stop you from saying that you think tobacco smoke is safe. Thankfully, most of the world recognizes the tactics of denial and Virginia politicians have finally been able to stand up to the industry and enact a common sense law that puts health over industry profits.
@Alfred
It’s not your night Alfred. Do you drive a car in city limits? You could well be killing people. The last epidemiological study I am aware of published is the 2006 Neuberger study into lung cancer in Iowa women, and in this study passive smoking was found to be protective of lung cancer, again I quote.
“Urban residence was a significantly increased risk factor using inside city limits as the category (OR=1.84, 95% CI=1.35-2.51). ....There was no significant increase or decrease in risk for those in high-risk occupations, those with any chemical exposure, those with asbestos exposure, or those with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as a child.
A significant inverse association was found for those with some college education (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.48-0.81) and for those with adult passive smoke exposure at home (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.26-0.54).“
@Alfred
Let me put your mind at rest. I am not employed by a tobacco company. I have never received any payment or expenses directly, indirectly, or in kind. I am merely a satisfied customer and outraged citzen who has seen his rights and bar owner’s property rights disappear at the stroke of a pen. I have read up on this subject so crypto fascists like you can be debated.
I am so glad you have brought up the EPA. Their first report in 1993 and I quote: “EPA never did its own study, instead cherry picking among a variety of studies to find a few that yielded a connection between secondhand smoke and cancer. Even then, they couldn’t connect ETS with cancer at the established statistical confidence level of 95%, and so chose to change the confidence level to 90% in order to “show” a weak link, subsequently doubling the likelihood that the findings were statistically flawed. Federal Judge William Osteen, after four years of interviewing a range of scientists, wrote a 94 page opinion of the EPA study, concluding that the agency disregarded disconfirming information, made findings based on selective information, and deviated from its risk assessment guidelines, in an effort to reach a pre-ordained conclusion.“
Basically it was nothing short of fraud.
The 1998 WHO study shows nothing of the sort on passive smoking. First point it actually found passive smoking protective to children exposed to it in the home:
“Results: ETS exposure during childhood
was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96).
The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93–1.44). No clear dose–response relationship
could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure.
(Note: a relative risk of 1.16 is not proof of anything. It must be 2.0 or more, the equivalent of a 200 % increase in risk. This study shows less than 20% increase in risk, not valid in an uncontrolled population study.)“
An RR of 1.16 means that mathematically there is a 16% chance there is a raised risk from SHS/ETS but also an 86.2% that is was NOT SHS/ETS.
In a Federal court any epidemiological study that does not reach an RR of 2.0 ie a 100% raised risk is inadmissible. I have included in the links below the “Reference Guide on Epidemiology” so please confirm ot yourself.
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23769.pdf
http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/17/1028570-secondhand-smoke-mirrors
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman06.pdf/$file/sciman06.pdf
Alfred, Of course I’m going to be an apologist for the tobacco industry. ‘Big tobacco’ has been good to our family—Lifelong health & prescription insurance, a really generous pension—and this particular company went out of business 15+ years ago. But families are still covered 100%, no worries. That’s healthy if you ask me :). I can’t think of any other private employer that knows how to look after its employees & retirees.
But I also mean what I say about ‘protecting restaurant workers’ from smoke. If I were convinced that restaurant workers truly strived to live virgin, 100% contaminant-free lives on their own accord—on their own accord when not at work—then sure I’d buy that jazz. But I know better.
Those who prefer to not in an area filled with smoke have had perfectly good alternatives for some time: patronize only “no smoking” restaurants or those with adequately separated and ventilated no-smoking sections and refuse to patronize the others.
I saw a tv segment on the smoking ban. A guy about as big around as he was tall with a gut hanging down like he was pregnant saying the smoking ban would help him be healthy. Obese would be a good term for him.
I hate to tell him but a little second hand smoke would be the last thing to effect his health.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement